Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all.

I'm an archaeologist and conservator by trade, particularly specialising in prehistory and the Iron Age and Rome in Britain and Europe. But as a conservator I also work to preserve and protect both archaeological and historic objects from ancient coinage, to weaponry, pottery, human remains and historic furniture. Working as a conservator means I've worked on a much more varied series of objects from across the world, from Egyptian ushabti to ethnographic masks. Right now for instance I'm in Nepal working with UNESCO at the site of the Buddha's birthplace and royal palace.

Last year I wrote a paper on the public perception of archaeology through the media. I used an online survey predominantly through social media platforms like facebook and twitter about how people interacted with news stories, what people actually assumed when they imagined archaeology and how people discussed it. It got a lot of responses and was a mixture of responses from all sorts of people.

Since then I've been collating from other areas and one place that I feel I missed vastly was on forums. Although I used them a huge amount in the early 2000s it's been a while since I used any with a great deal of frequency. I know that a lot of people who play Warhammer and other games tend to be quite interested in the study of the past but I also know that a lot of people without meaning to can get a lot of misinformation from online sources. Archaeology has a great deal of problems with that as the way that a lot of data that hits the media is actually widely out of date compared to say modern academic thinking. Particular issues at the time of writing the paper were about how people discussed the news regarding African and Middle Eastern people in Europe during the Roman and Medieval periods. Or about how people consider the idea of 'ancient aliens'.

Basically if anyone is interested, please comment and inquire about any subject or perhaps a recent news story you might want to find out more about or discuss further as I'd just like to know what the first things spring into people's minds when presented with something like this. If this post proves popular I'll happily continue to talk about anything related to the subject. Or if not it'll prove an interesting talking point in the next paper as nobody took any notice.

Cheers

Can you link to the article you wrote?

Sounds harsh, but I think the public perception is that archaeology is the more 'boring' side of history having been dragged past cases of old coins and worn bits of stone as a child.

However, Time Team was certainly very popular in the UK and I do like books that put a bit more explaination into how the physical evidence can be interpreted (I read a good one recently about dark age britain but annoyingly can't find it now!)

 Kroem wrote:
Sounds harsh, but I think the public perception is that archaeology is the more 'boring' side of history having been dragged past cases of old coins and worn bits of stone as a child.

However, Time Team was certainly very popular in the UK and I do like books that put a bit more explaination into how the physical evidence can be interpreted (I read a good one recently about dark age britain but annoyingly can't find it now!)

Not harsh at all bud, that's totally valid. The whole point of this thread was to get replies like that, to talk about more! Oftentimes when you're presented with something like that it's easy to totally write it off. Part of what we do in archaeology is addressing those issues. Part of the problem in the UK is the lack of funding in local museums is shocking so the displays aren't great. In archaeology we tend to look at things past what history writes about, so really it's more about local differences and widescale trade networks, women children and the poor who don't get a look in when history is written by a very specific set of people.

Also one of the common misconceptions is what 'history' is and what 'archaeology' is, all the objects and information of the past is more often than not, found archaeologically, the stuff purely written about is historical.

As for the paper, it's currently going through final editing before being published. There's a whole thing about trying to get something opensourced so that it's available for free as opposed to behind an academic paywall.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
Sounds harsh, but I think the public perception is that archaeology is the more 'boring' side of history having been dragged past cases of old coins and worn bits of stone as a child.

However, Time Team was certainly very popular in the UK and I do like books that put a bit more explaination into how the physical evidence can be interpreted (I read a good one recently about dark age britain but annoyingly can't find it now!)

Not harsh at all bud, that's totally valid. The whole point of this thread was to get replies like that, to talk about more! Oftentimes when you're presented with something like that it's easy to totally write it off. Part of what we do in archaeology is addressing those issues. Part of the problem in the UK is the lack of funding in local museums is shocking so the displays aren't great. In archaeology we tend to look at things past what history writes about, so really it's more about local differences and widescale trade networks, women children and the poor who don't get a look in when history is written by a very specific set of people.

Also one of the common misconceptions is what 'history' is and what 'archaeology' is, all the objects and information of the past is more often than not, found archaeologically, the stuff purely written about is historical.

I'd take a slightly different position. We're just material-centred and anthropologically-aware historians, really. Well, those of us working in historic periods, at least. I think drawing a distinction between historians and archaeologists is a bit unhelpful in my particular area (BA-IA Near East), though it's very often the norm.

As for the paper, it's currently going through final editing before being published. There's a whole thing about trying to get something opensourced so that it's available for free as opposed to behind an academic paywall.

Where's it going? I'm waiting for one to run through the especially-tedious Archaeological Dialogues process, just now.

Archeologists boring? Don’t you explore deathtrap laden tombs and punch out nazis?

When you aren’t digging holes with a toothbrush that is.

 Nevelon wrote:
Archeologists boring? Don’t you explore deathtrap laden tombs and punch out nazis?

Not often. I've been under rocket fire and had to flee survey areas because people thought ISIS might be coming to kidnap us, if that helps?

I am casually quite interested in archaeology, which is to say I find it interesting and entertaining but rarely take an academic approach to its study.

One of my "problems" with archaeology (which extends to other evidence-based disciplines) is when claims are made that x is true, as opposed to saying that the evidence suggests x. Or that based on the evidence, the best modern people can figure is that x.

The rampant SURETY of claims made on the internet (by and large not an academic resource, obviously) is part of my frustration with the field. This can refer to what some would call "mainstream archaeologists" who one assumes maintain their position based on evidence and academic tradition as well as the opposite end of the spectrum who make claims about every geometric mountain being a pyramid, mesas being fossilized giant trees, and irrefutable evidence for alien intervention found in the hieroglyphs and decorations of various ancient cultures.

I will listen to podcasts like Ancient Warfare, where the speakers will give their various perspectives and provide the evidence for them, but they will always provide the caveat that often-times we just don't know the answer to something. What evidence we have in terms of written documents (many times the best we can possibly expect thousands of years later) may simply itself not be accurate - or contain contemporary bias, intentional or otherwise. That reality is both frustrating, because we'd like to know, but also thrilling, because we can't really know.

Just some thoughts, hope they were worthwhile.

Personally, I find archaeology fascinating, but then I'm considering doing a masters in bioarchaeology in the near future, so probably biased

I think that experimental archaeology has done wonders for improving the public perception of archaeology. Sure, Time Team was popular in the UK, but there is something much more engaging about watching a documentary on people building a castle today over digging up one that was lost 800 years ago.

Of course, experimental archaeology is largely guesswork to fill in the gaps of understanding, but I think it is a valuable part of archaeology as a whole. I think a significant part of the value of the experimental side is in engaging the next generation of archaelogists though. It brings prior findings to life.

I wanted to be one as a kid, but then I imagined myself using a paintbrush to uncover treasure in ancient Egypt, not stuck in a soggy hole in England. Nowi just look at it, and leave others to dig it up

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I am casually quite interested in archaeology, which is to say I find it interesting and entertaining but rarely take an academic approach to its study.

One of my "problems" with archaeology (which extends to other evidence-based disciplines) is when claims are made that x is true, as opposed to saying that the evidence suggests x. Or that based on the evidence, the best modern people can figure is that x.

Just some thoughts, hope they were worthwhile.

That's very much true, but also in a lot of cases it is inference with a good deal of knowledge, while it's absolutely true that some of it is guessing, in archaeology it's professional guessing which is a little bit better haha. I agree absolutely with what you're saying though. Part of the interest is the detective work of it, it's a lot of inference and drawing clues and ideas from both modern and ancient ideas to get a better understanding. And a lot of the things missing is that for a long time archaeology has been done by a privileged few, that misses out on so many different narratives and leads to all sorts of misconceptions. Modern craft makers and builders from across the world are therefore invaluable because they can say oh that random scattering of (blank) happens all the time when I'm making jewellery or pottery or whatever. Something that seems so small and insignificant can have a huge impact on that process which would be missed by someone who hasn't spent their life working on a trade.

Nfe - Near East stuff is definitely not my area of expertise although I had a great module on it at Leicester for my UG and I thought it was really interesting. I try not to say there is a distinction between arch and history, but often I think people misinterpret archaeology as it's perhaps a bit of an oddity and certainly from what I gathered from surveys is that a lot of people aren't 100% sure on what archaeology is ( the same can be said for some archaeologists too!) I think it helps to draw some kind of distinction in order to highlight how archaeology plays an important role in the understanding of the past.

Experimental archaeology is great because it's the physical act of doing something which gives you a real appreciation for the work gone into making something. I'd agree that it's a great way of garnering more interest but also it should be backed up by interpretation and not just left on its own.

Cheers for all the replies, do keep them coming it's all really helpful!

 Olthannon wrote:


Nfe - Near East stuff is definitely not my area of expertise although I had a great module on it at Leicester for my UG and I thought it was really interesting.

I didn't even realise Leicester ran any Near Eastern courses as we don't have a representative from them on the BANEA committee. I guess Naoíse gets roped into teaching it because she's worked in Turkey? Or did it get caught in amongst some of Graham Barker's North African stuff back in the day or something?

Naoisé does some of it, I think someone else may do? No idea if that's changed in the years since I was there though.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I am casually quite interested in archaeology, which is to say I find it interesting and entertaining but rarely take an academic approach to its study.

One of my "problems" with archaeology (which extends to other evidence-based disciplines) is when claims are made that x is true, as opposed to saying that the evidence suggests x. Or that based on the evidence, the best modern people can figure is that x.

The rampant SURETY of claims made on the internet (by and large not an academic resource, obviously) is part of my frustration with the field. This can refer to what some would call "mainstream archaeologists" who one assumes maintain their position based on evidence and academic tradition as well as the opposite end of the spectrum who make claims about every geometric mountain being a pyramid, mesas being fossilized giant trees, and irrefutable evidence for alien intervention found in the hieroglyphs and decorations of various ancient cultures.
.

That really doesn't have anything to do with archaeology as a discipline though. That's just internet idiots and conspiracy theorists.

Archaeology without an 'academic approach' is just tomb robbing. Which granted is how it got started, but completely inappropriate today.

 Olthannon wrote:


Also one of the common misconceptions is what 'history' is and what 'archaeology' is, all the objects and information of the past is more often than not, found archaeologically, the stuff purely written about is historical.

One thing I've found among certain crowds of PhD holding historians (my first degree is in history) is that the lines between archaeology and history are becoming increasingly blurred. . . Now, yes, the archaeologists and anthro people do have more "lab skills" in identifying, aging, and putting notions in place about an object's place and use, but historians will then use that info, in combination with recorded media (post-modernists are also trending toward art and other items as documents) to further their research into historical papers.

I would assume the reverse is somewhat true as well, that you Indiana Jones and Lara Croft types would use some historical research papers, on occasion, as a guide to figure out the "place" of an object.




One question I do have, I think it's been mentioned on this forum, or maybe I saw it elsewhere. . . is the joke about archaeologists rather true?? The joke I'm referring to is the one about when an archaeologist is unsure about the use of a place, or items contained, the go to label is "religious significance"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:


Also one of the common misconceptions is what 'history' is and what 'archaeology' is, all the objects and information of the past is more often than not, found archaeologically, the stuff purely written about is historical.

One thing I've found among certain crowds of PhD holding historians (my first degree is in history) is that the lines between archaeology and history are becoming increasingly blurred. . . Now, yes, the archaeologists and anthro people do have more "lab skills" in identifying, aging, and putting notions in place about an object's place and use, but historians will then use that info, in combination with recorded media (post-modernists are also trending toward art and other items as documents) to further their research into historical papers.

I would assume the reverse is somewhat true as well, that you Indiana Jones and Lara Croft types would use some historical research papers, on occasion, as a guide to figure out the "place" of an object.

The wider humanities went through the 'material turn' in the early 2000s and subsequently yes they engage a lot more with non-textual sources. Archaeologists working in historic periods have always utilised texts. In some subdisciplines, Hittitology and Assyriology, for example, the first historians were explicitly archaeologists.

One question I do have, I think it's been mentioned on this forum, or maybe I saw it elsewhere. . . is the joke about archaeologists rather true?? The joke I'm referring to is the one about when an archaeologist is unsure about the use of a place, or items contained, the go to label is "religious significance"

Less prevalent than it once was, but yes. It's a major problem for a whole variety of reasons - not just because it's lazy, but because it implies a ritual/secular separation in periods where it is certainly anachronistic.

nfe wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Archeologists boring? Don’t you explore deathtrap laden tombs and punch out nazis?

Not often. I've been under rocket fire and had to flee survey areas because people thought ISIS might be coming to kidnap us, if that helps?

Well, it is kind of a modern analogy, to be fair.

I’m very interested in modern archaeology over the older stuff.

As you mentioned, it’s traditonally been elitist, and even fairly narrow minded, bordering on racist. Assertions that Culture X couldn’t have built Contruct Y, because Europeans at that time had just about noticed that stacking up turds helped block the wind (exaggeration for affect).

To see more objective takes on it, including stuff like actual Egyptian instructions for building a Pyramid just makes it all the more fascinating. Especially when it shows ancient civilisations to have been far more cosmopolitan than first thought, with surprisingly wide trade links.

To quote a meme I saw the other day? Just because White people couldnt do it, doesn’t mean it was Aliens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is why I’m still utterly in love with Time Team. It’s a cracking show. Perhaps not terribly highbrow as archaeology goes, but treading the right line between simplifying and outright dumbing down, making the whole thing far more accessible, and therefore interesting.

I do wonder how many young minds were turned on to picking up the trowel by that show?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m very interested in modern archaeology over the older stuff.

When you first said this, I thought you meant the archaeology of the recent past, rather than older time periods

Certainly the WWII archaeological record in the UK is rapidly disappearing. There was an interesting time-team episode excavating defense emplacements near London. Fascinating to see how fortified Britain was during WWII, very impressive defense-in-depth.

I think the issue is the same as it is for many many subjects. Casual and entertainment level information is often years behind the real research but is easier to access, often advertised and sold openly and is often what people will first find.

More serious and intermediate texts are much harder to find and in some areas there's nothing between beginner and advanced. This is especially true if you're not tied into a university or other institute system. Such books are often only marketed and priced for students and just never make it into the wider world.

Then, of course, you've got the cost barriers of more advanced and research level papers. The cutting edge is often behind pay walls which are marketed at institutions not individuals so the prices can be very steep per year. This cuts out the enthusiastic amateur and whilst there are some avenues to get cheaper access or more affordable; its again a case of hunting it down.


We live in the information age, but much knowledge is still trapped behind barriers. Not least of which is the internet itself which confuses and muddies the water terribly and way beyond just opinionated variation in interpretation.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m very interested in modern archaeology over the older stuff.

As you mentioned, it’s traditonally been elitist, and even fairly narrow minded, bordering on racist. Assertions that Culture X couldn’t have built Contruct Y, because Europeans at that time had just about noticed that stacking up turds helped block the wind (exaggeration for affect).

To see more objective takes on it, including stuff like actual Egyptian instructions for building a Pyramid just makes it all the more fascinating. Especially when it shows ancient civilisations to have been far more cosmopolitan than first thought, with surprisingly wide trade links.

To quote a meme I saw the other day? Just because White people couldnt do it, doesn’t mean it was Aliens.

I dont think anyone actually thinks that way. The reason that could be 'almost' considered is the sheer perfection of everything created by the eqyptians. I've been there, and the temple carvings are all so smooth and symmetrical, and aparantly made using just bits of rock on rock. No hard metal tools whatsoever. It is legitimately unbelievable how it was done.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m very interested in modern archaeology over the older stuff.

As you mentioned, it’s traditonally been elitist, and even fairly narrow minded, bordering on racist. Assertions that Culture X couldn’t have built Contruct Y, because Europeans at that time had just about noticed that stacking up turds helped block the wind (exaggeration for affect).

To see more objective takes on it, including stuff like actual Egyptian instructions for building a Pyramid just makes it all the more fascinating. Especially when it shows ancient civilisations to have been far more cosmopolitan than first thought, with surprisingly wide trade links.

To quote a meme I saw the other day? Just because White people couldnt do it, doesn’t mean it was Aliens.

I dont think anyone actually thinks that way. The reason that could be 'almost' considered is the sheer perfection of everything created by the eqyptians. I've been there, and the temple carvings are all so smooth and symmetrical, and aparantly made using just bits of rock on rock. No hard metal tools whatsoever. It is legitimately unbelievable how it was done.

They'd had bronze for hundreds of years before any of the major works. That aside, many people definitely think that way. People spent a century trying to find ways of claiming that Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Egyptian elites weren't North African. Nobody ever had to try and claim Neolithic people in Dorset had help from somewhere else to drag hundreds of tons of stone from Wales to build Stonehenge or dig 22km x 7m ditches with bones.

I’m not saying it’s a universal thing, just for clarity. Nor should their be an inference that the science is somehow forever tainted.

Anyways.

My favourite? Terracotta Army. I was lucky enough to be a nipper when it visited Edinburgh. All the way back in 1985. I dimly remember it, but the dim is warm and fuzzy. (That’s right, a full 22 years before the British Museum got it! Take that, Bembridge Scholars!)

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/steve-cardownie-terracotta-army-s-first-visit-to-uk-was-to-edinburgh-1-4688317

Three years late? Egyptian display. https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/lost-edinburgh-gold-of-the-pharaohs-1988-1-4099255

Considering how long it’s been since we had those visit out fair shores I do count myself as a very lucky little sausage indeed!

So is it true that if an archaeologist can't explain something they just mark it as an unspecified religious ritual site?

 Kroem wrote:
So is it true that if an archaeologist can't explain something they just mark it as an unspecified religious ritual site?

nfe wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

One question I do have, I think it's been mentioned on this forum, or maybe I saw it elsewhere. . . is the joke about archaeologists rather true?? The joke I'm referring to is the one about when an archaeologist is unsure about the use of a place, or items contained, the go to label is "religious significance"

Less prevalent than it once was, but yes. It's a major problem for a whole variety of reasons - not just because it's lazy, but because it implies a ritual/secular separation in periods where it is certainly anachronistic.

It's a joke but there has been the danger of it frequently in the past, particularly with prehistoric sites. A lot of that stems from unusual traits and activities that seem beyond modern comprehension. There's a site from the Mesolithic in the SW of the UK where child long bones like femurs and tibias where jammed into the head sockets of animal skulls like cows and sheep. That one is definitely a probable 'ritual' in the proper sense. But everyone has rituals and they can be very mundane, like wearing socks on a certain day of the week or licking your paintbrush or whatever.

Does wearing a certain pair of socks on Wednesdays really come up to the level of a ritual “in the proper sense”? That seems a rather euphemistic way to use the term to me, especially when contrasted against the practices of, uh, post-pre-historic religions. I ask to lead into a more specific question: with what frequency/in what volume must one find child femurs stuck in an animal skull before one can say, ah now here’s evidence of ritual activity as opposed to Ugg the Caveman being bored and randomly fiddling around (or doing bespoke sculpture or whatever other explanation)?

Yes, more often that not. A 'ritual' is not the same as 'ritualistic'. Something simple like frequently wearing say red socks on Wednesday, or eating chilli on a monday, a Sunday dinner, fish Friday, as daft as it sounds, eventually becomes a tradition. People become interested in the idea and so it gains following. In the case of the skulls, it was multiple times over multiple periods over more than one area. These things are human traits that exist across the world through every time period, even if they sound mundane the still occur and still hold meaning.
When these things happen just once it's written down as such, but this is where evidence and inference in archaeology are used. If something similar happens somewhere else you then consider how the two may or may not be linked.

 Manchu wrote:
Does wearing a certain pair of socks on Wednesdays really come up to the level of a ritual “in the proper sense”? That seems a rather euphemistic way to use the term to me, especially when contrasted against the practices of, uh, post-pre-historic religions.

It's essentially impossible to define 'ritual' (or cult or religion) in a way that both covers everything that no one would challenge was ritualistic, but excludes things that are immensely mundane - importantly, loads of explicitly religious rituals are incredibly mundane because it permeates everything for many religious people. Catholics crossing themselves is a good example. People saying grace before a meal. Getting dressed may well be surrounded by ritualised obligations and processes. It permeates everything even more thoroughly in societies where a separation of the secular and supernatural simply doesn't exist (which is basically everywhere until a few hundred years ago).

That said - vast amounts of the archaeological literature doesn't engage with the theory at all, and is quite happy to use 'ritual' uncritically to mean 'explicit and formal religious act' and apply it to things where there is only vague evidence of such a thing happening. I always think there are a whole ton of toys that have been interpreted as ritual items because they don't have obvious utilitarian functions to a modern eye.

I ask to lead into a more specific question: with what frequency/in what volume must one find child femurs stuck in an animal skull before one can say, ah now here’s evidence of ritual activity as opposed to Ugg the Caveman being bored and randomly fiddling around (or doing bespoke sculpture or whatever other explanation)?

As with everything in humanities academia, the exact frequency required to get the statement beyond peer review.

It seems like you are implying a distinction based on how many people participate. If it’s only me wearing red socks on Wednesday, is that a ritual or just a habit, quirk, superstition, etc? By contrast, most people in a large portion of the world today brush their teeth when they get up in the morning (or at least know that they’re supposed to). Now, is that what you mean by a ritual, including in the sense that it is mundane. How about if I visit the grave of my grandfather every year on the anniversary of his death. That’s an example of something only I do, by myself, but is it a ritual? Or perhaps that is just a custom, or again, a habit? Then you’re also using the word “tradition” — as a synonym for ritual or something else?

Again, I’m splitting hairs just because of how vastly remote we are from pre-historic culture. By what logic do we even conclude that pre-historic culture involved any conception of ritual whatsoever?