Ancient Cultures

[Brian]

i LOVE history!! i like the romans

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Hemel
But how I hate looters. My view is that knowledge like this belongs to all of us, and looters deprive us of it. They also disturb all the contextual deposits irretrievably, which means again that much information is for ever lost. TG most metal detectorists are responsible, and call in interpreters when they find things.

Couldn't agree more. Too much of our past and history is torn apart and torn out of context just so somebody can have a shiny old object in his private collection.

But still, much depends on your point of view. For some, trained archeologists are just the same as looters. Because once something is dug up, you can never redo the dig and all the contextual data is lost in reality, except on paper.

[Falagar]

I'm taking Old history as a subject next year! Hurrah! Was looking bad for some time, but it's decided.

[Elfmaster XK]

Originally posted by Eärniel
But still, much depends on your point of view. For some, trained archeologists are just the same as looters. Because once something is dug up, you can never redo the dig and all the contextual data is lost in reality, except on paper.

That is true, that once removed it can never be placed back into its original context. However, there's more advantages to archaeology than disadvantages. Textual sources don't report everything, and many of them are literature. I think those who think that any form of archaeology is destructive are right (yes, it destroys the evidence as it was) but also wrong, because without it we'd have much less knowledge of the past. For example: I think it was at Cremna there was a seige retold by a historian (i can't recall the spelling of the name) who was widely regarded as a bad historian, but a dig at Cremna uncovered siege mounds, catapult fire, fallen walls etc. and a stone tablet dating the the reign of the emperor Probus was found, exactly as accounted by this historian. So it seems he was correct, and without the archaeology no one would have known.

It gives us more information, and those who think it is a bad thing are wrong.

[Hemel]

But still, much depends on your point of view. For some, trained archeologists are just the same as looters. Because once something is dug up, you can never redo the dig and all the contextual data is lost in reality, except on paper.

Yes, I agree with this. At least, fortunately, archaeologists tend to recognise this problem and make loads and LOADS of records, with the intention that people who come after can visit a, as it were, virtual dig, and maybe bring to it different interpretations too. There's also a current consciousness that at least some stuff should be left undisturbed on digs, with the aim of leaving things for people later, who may have developed better or different techniques. Then there's the consideration that archaeologists are working under the remit of contributing to knowledge (academic reputations and rewards are incidental ) and will work in a very much more detailed and trained way, in comparison with looters. But it all can never be cut and dried, because so much does depend on the individuals doing the field work, their techniques and their frameworks. But it is a tricky one, balancing benefits of knowledge against the inevitable destruction.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elfmaster XK
It gives us more information, and those who think it is a bad thing are wrong.

Were it that simple...!

Archaeology is a complicated issue. It it something that even (when I reached) at a masters level, can not be viewed in simplistic terms. The nature of archaeology has changed drastically over the years - from mere looting and private collections, to moving out into the public sector. Even so, with all the advances, there is still argument within the field as to what constitutes 'good archaeology'. Do you restore?- and risk changing the natural decay of a site, or do you dig it all up and hope you can adequately document it, or do you wait until sufficient advances in the field have occurred before doing so? How do you know that some new technique isn't going to come along that would have better enabled you to understand a site, but now you can't re-excavate, because it is gone forever?....

Wish that it were that simple... !

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Hemel
But it is a tricky one, balancing benefits of knowledge against the inevitable destruction.

Ah, ya bet me.

Yes, documentation is crucial in archaeology. Which can lead to all sorts of problems: the write-up being lead by a pet theory (rather than by the facts), and other various shortcomings of the author/archaeologist, certain levels of ethnocentrism, etc. A complicated business.

[Elfmaster XK]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Were it that simple...!

Archaeology is a complicated issue. It it something that even (when I reached) at a masters level, can not be viewed in simplistic terms. The nature of archaeology has changed drastically over the years - from mere looting and private collections, to moving out into the public sector. Even so, with all the advances, there is still argument within the field as to what constitutes 'good archaeology'. Do you restore?- and risk changing the natural decay of a site, or do you dig it all up and hope you can adequately document it, or do you wait until sufficient advances in the field have occurred before doing so? How do you know that some new technique isn't going to come along that would have better enabled you to understand a site, but now you can't re-excavate, because it is gone forever?....

Wish that it were that simple... !

I understand the complications that it presents, but I think (and that is simply my opinion) that the information we gain from it is valuable as we get it. No technique is ever going to tell us how to interpret the evidence we see. Sure, it can help us document more accurately, but in the end everything comes down to how that is interpretted. The only people who can interpret it are other people.

The evidence won't be there forever either, so what is one to do?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elfmaster XK
The evidence won't be there forever either, so what is one to do?

Yes, I know that. I was merely pointing out that it was more complicated than "good" and "bad". Sure the knowledge we gain from archaeological expeditions is valuable, but then it is also frustrating, because sometimes going back to older excavations minus [insert new fandangled technology here] means that so much information has been lost. Forever. THAT is why it is complicated. I used to think, bugger it all, dig it up, learn, document, yay! Now, I'm not so sure what I buy into. I can certainly tell you this much: archaeology must be one of the most frustrating fields ever! Run away, while you still can!

[Elfmaster XK]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yes, I know that. I was merely pointing out that it was more complicated than "good" and "bad". Sure the knowledge we gain from archaeological expeditions is valuable, but then it is also frustrating, because sometimes going back to older excavations minus [insert new fandangled technology here] means that so much information has been lost. Forever. THAT is why it is complicated. I used to think, bugger it all, dig it up, learn, document, yay! Now, I'm not so sure what I buy into. I can certainly tell you this much: archaeology must be one of the most frustrating fields ever! Run away, while you still can!

Maybe I am still in the stage of the new archaeologist!BoP, and believe that we can't wait forever for technology we'd really like to have. I have to admit you have more experience and knowledge of the subject than me, I am a lowly first year. I do recognise both sides of the argument though, and you never know, when I am deeper into the subject I may decide to agree with you...and run away.

*opens door and runs*

[BeardofPants]

Damned lowly first years. Seriously though, hope you have better luck with the field than I did.

Edit: I should add that I'm now doing GIS which I hope will enable me to help with information recovery.

[Elfmaster XK]

Thanks BoP. I'm sorry to hear things didn't go the way you wanted either.

As much as I love the subjects I'm doing I have no idea where to take them afterwards...so I'll just see what happens.

Oh, and incidentally, I came across the Shipwrecked Sailor text the other day when I was looking for something else. I'd never seen it before then.

[Valandil]

Not as ancient as some we've talked about, but one historical figure I never knew about until college (though I'm sure this is otherwise in the UK) was King Alfred the Great. I learned a little in a history class (Western Civilization) and then read his bio (by Asser, I think - a Welsh monk who came to his court)... and I was astonished! I'm surprised there is yet to be a major motion picture about him. Esp the one winter - was it 877-878 or so (?)... where the Danish armies pulled off a surprise invasion of Wessex at Christmastime - and he had to flee and conduct guerilla operations the next few months before he could regain control of his country (including the legend about the burning cakes). There were other 'great' things as well... the man had a MIND, could write, organized defenses, brokered peace deals, took explorers into his court, encouraged literacy, etc, etc.

Fascinating!

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Valandil
King Alfred the Great. I learned a little in a history class (Western Civilization) and then read his bio (by Asser, I think - a Welsh monk who came to his court)... and I was astonished! I'm surprised there is yet to be a major motion picture about him.
__________________________________
There was a 1969 movie (cast including a young Michael York and Ian McKellan), in an interview somewhere I think York said they hoped it would be a better movie then it turned out to be, and you can see some care was put into it.

One aspect of archaeology which I've always found somewhat disquieting is the digging up of graves. Periodicals like The National Geographic tend to dance around the issue or avoid it, but personally, I'd rather graves (no matter how old) were not disinterred, or , if done, respectfully reburied after artifacts had been studied. In the United States, I believe there are instances of Native Americans successfully having some return of such artifacts and some reinterments.

[Beor]

Thats true, but I dont really think I'd mind if they dug up my grave in a few thousand years. I like to think that maybe someday I will be a relic that someone can learn something from (of course, I also think that it would be cool to be shot into the sun)

[sun-star]

Alfred the Great - definitely well-named in my opinion. And an inspiration to bad cooks too - now there's a king I can relate to

[Grey_Wolf]

I am soon to get two books about sailing. The Story of Sail and Ships and Seamanship of the Ancient World.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by sun-star
Alfred the Great - definitely well-named in my opinion. And an inspiration to bad cooks too - now there's a king I can relate to

What about King Harold? He's the King who lost to William the Conqueror. You could say the last true British King. Someone wrote a great book about him, I forget what it's called though. Something about a raven. The narrator is this cool mute guy who writes well.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What about King Harold? He's the King who lost to William the Conqueror. You could say the last true British King. Someone wrote a great book about him, I forget what it's called though. Something about a raven. The narrator is this cool mute guy who writes well.

I really sympathize with Harold... and feel like he got a raw deal all around. Technically though, he was the last true English King... the English being the product of the mixed Angle-Saxon-Jutish invaders from the 5th & 6th centuries (the 'Engl' came from the 'Angl') who pushed aside the earlier Romanized Britons. The last British King was probably axed by a Saxon somewhere.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Are you aware that William the Conqueror was
a real bastard? Really! (Hey, if Bart Simpson can comment to his mother characterizing a dog as a b****, then why can't William be accurately described. Hmm?)

And for a good book with chapters on William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great, Boadicea, King Arthur, The Sutton Hoo Man, Offa [of Dike fame],Athelstan, Eric Bloodaxe, and Ethelred the Unready [wonder how he got that moniker. get In Search Of The Dark Ages, by Michael Wood. Perhaps you've seen his great TV series In Search of The Trojan War.