Take a look at York Archaeological Trust's website which shows some of the evidence for the skeletons discussed in the
Gladiators: Back from the Dead Programme. And you get to cast your vote, saying what YOU think the skeletons may represent!:
http://www.headlessromans.com/
Some of things that really go up my nose with the Channel 4 'archaeology' programmes is the fact that they:
- (a) string things out for far longer than they need to, with constant repetitions, then
(b) insist of recapping the 'evidence' or course of the argument immediately after an advert, as if you absolutely cannot retain any information for longer than 2 minutes and
(3) that a tentative 'conclusion' suddenly becomes a 'fact' (with little real evidence) and on this 'fact' they then construct a whole 'story', which is then used to 'explain' other 'facts'.
This programme about the York cemetary pushed all of the buttons above. It was an hour long and could have been done in half of that time. At the end, I was left denying the whole thing because there were so many other possible explanations for what had been found and which were not examined properly because the makers (though probably not the YAC) had an agenda that they were persueing. To be fair to the YAC, the web site does allow you to see that there were other possibilities.
They have never found an amphitheatre at York (so, maybe there wasn't one?) There was, however, a major legionary base there for a very long time period. It seems to me that there is a real possibility that many (though, possibly, not all) of these men were either soldiers who were battle casualties, or who had been executed for mutiny/rebellion/cowardice (hence the beheading). These other possibilities weren't (IMO) really examined by this programme.
I remember heated discussions about these headless remains, and others like them, whilst at university (in York, as it happens!) There was a fairly even divide between the "oooh, it must have been of a ritual significance!" to "well, they had a nasty run in with some natives". Personally, they appear to have been hacked off in too much of a cackhanded way to be of a ritual execution - some with up to 11 separate blows. It's possible they were executed for crimes unknown, as executioners aren't always neat or accurate. I'd like to see more evidence of a substantial ampitheatre before I accept the gladiator explanation. Also, as an osteologist, I'd love to examine the skeletons myself!
Quote:(a) string things out for far longer than they need to, with constant repetitions, then
(b) insist of recapping the 'evidence' or course of the argument immediately after an advert, as if you absolutely cannot retain any information for longer than 2 minutes and
(3) that a tentative 'conclusion' suddenly becomes a 'fact' (with little real evidence) and on this 'fact' they then construct a whole 'story', which is then used to 'explain' other 'facts'.
I'll second that! Not just that show mind you, as I have yet to see it, but many others follow the same format.
I would say most evidence points towards them being Criminals. I have never heard of this "God of the Underworld" thing; can anyone elaborate?
I don't suppose a group of people (in the fields) from RAT for observation of things like this is possible...or is it?
Quote:.... whilst at university (in York, as it happens!)
Ha! Me too! Sadly, not in archaeology or history - I did a Masters in Education & Chemistry between 1978 and 1980 (I think - long time ago). One of the things I most regret is that I did not take full advantage of my time there to really have a look at York's archaeology. I did look at some of the conclusions while there for the Jorvik work, which were of a chemical nature, though.
Mike Thomas
Quote:Some of things that really go up my nose with the Channel 4 'archaeology' programmes is the fact that they:
- (a) string things out for far longer than they need to, with constant repetitions, then
(b) insist of recapping the 'evidence' or course of the argument immediately after an advert, as if you absolutely cannot retain any information for longer than 2 minutes and
(3) that a tentative 'conclusion' suddenly becomes a 'fact' (with little real evidence) and on this 'fact' they then construct a whole 'story', which is then used to 'explain' other 'facts'.
Sadly, all too common in TV documentaries and part of what
Stephen Fry has called the infantilisation of TV (start at about 35:20 in, during the post-lecture discussion) - the assumption that we're all pretty stupid. The same reason many (thankfully not all) publishers are afraid of footnotes and want to produce pappy generalised books. They fly in the face of Bishop's Second Rule of Everything: the audience are always brighter than you think they are, although some will be much more stupid than you can possibly imagine.
Mike Bishop
Quote:Bishop's Second Rule of Everything: the audience are always brighter than you think they are, although some will be much more stupid than you can possibly imagine.
Having been a teacher for 27 years, I can concur with that last comment! Actually, unless you have been with a class of 15-year olds, you cannot possibly imagine just
how stupid they can be (especially last thing on a Friday afternoon!)
This is what '
educayshun' in this country has been reduced to. If you look at any modern school textbook (in any subject) you will find that topics are treated on a single double-page spread. Why? Because it is believed that if the kid has to turn the page over, anything on the previous page will be forgotten. Sadly, in all too many cases, this is true!
Having said that, the reverse is also true. Some kids will amaze you with their depth of understanding and perception. I wish that programme makers would forget about 'dumbing down' and go for stretching the best. A recent series of programmes on the history of chemistry by Dr. Al Kalili was brilliant, I thought, because (a) it was about full-blooded chemistry (a great rarity on TV) and (b) it did not 'talk down' to the viewers. If they can do it for chemistry, they can surely do it for history and archaeology, yes?
Mike Thomas
Quote:Having been a teacher for 27 years, I can concur with that last comment! Actually, unless you have been with a class of 15-year olds, you cannot possibly imagine just how stupid they can be (especially last thing on a Friday afternoon!)
Well I teach little ones (lower primary usually) but the things they know never ceases to surprise and delight me! The day a four year old told me that talking birds were "anthropomorphic" was the day I felt like handing over my job to him!
If only they knew so much about history and archaeology; last year a topic on Victorians revealed that most of them believed Queen Victoria lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Ahh, for the perspective of innocent youth, eh?
A person has to be interested in something to learn. Reading dry books and writing notes isn't very interactive. Documentaries and debates would liven things up but that doesn't follow curriculum. A field trip to a museum or living history group would be fun as well. Gives them a reason to stay awake. What 14 year old wouldn't want to see some Headless Romans! :lol:
Quote:A person has to be interested in something to learn. Reading dry books and writing notes isn't very interactive. Documentaries and debates would liven things up but that doesn't follow curriculum. A field trip to a museum or living history group would be fun as well. Gives them a reason to stay awake. What 14 year old wouldn't want to see some Headless Romans! :lol:
This is why I love the primary curriculum in Wales, we can do pretty much any topic and method of teaching as long as it delivers key skill points. It means I can do things like have an archaeological dig day or turn up to teach my class dressed as a Roman. Turning up as a headless Roman, however, might be more of a challenge!
Quote:A person has to be interested in something to learn. Reading dry books and writing notes isn't very interactive.
Up to a point! There comes a time when some things have to be learned that are not so much interesting as
useful. I've had to learn lots of things in my career that were boreing as heck (chiefly maths, I admit) - but it had to be done because I needed that information for something else that I
was interested in.
Modern education has made some great advances in teaching techniques over the last 40 years and it's no longer a matter of reading dry books and writing notes but (and it's a big 'but') much of this has been negated by political interference and an obcession with 'targets'. If you don't meet that target, you're in trouble. Never mind whether the target you have to meet is of any particular use or of any intellectual or educational value!
Programmes like the one we have been discussing are prime examples of this sort of thing. It's a 'dumbing down' of the worst possible sort, because while it might be suitable for the 'average' (or below average) viewer it doesn't do anything for the discerning person - except annoy them. I
am interested in the subject matter and (even at my age) I
do want to learn and understand and I rather resent being treated in this way, which I regard as sheer lazyness on the part of the programme makers (who no doubt would have all sorts of reasons for making their programmes in this way).
Quote:This is why I love the primary curriculum in Wales
Let's hear it for devolution!
Mike Thomas
Quote:Programmes like the one we have been discussing are prime examples of this sort of thing. It's a 'dumbing down' of the worst possible sort, because while it might be suitable for the 'average' (or below average) viewer it doesn't do anything for the discerning person - except annoy them. I am interested in the subject matter and (even at my age) I do want to learn and understand and I rather resent being treated in this way, which I regard as sheer lazyness on the part of the programme makers (who no doubt would have all sorts of reasons for making their programmes in this way).
I find BBC4 has the best documentaries, ones that don't talk down to the viewer and speak to the informed as well as the lay person. Their recent "Atom" series was excellent, I'd like to see them do a good series on some meaty archaeology or history topics.
Quote:Astiryu1:10hynwg2 Wrote:A person has to be interested in something to learn. Reading dry books and writing notes isn't very interactive.
Up to a point! There comes a time when some things have to be learned that are not so much interesting as useful. I've had to learn lots of things in my career that were boreing as heck (chiefly maths, I admit) - but it had to be done because I needed that information for something else that I was interested in.
Mike Thomas
That is the "application" and that could be fun too! Isn't Trigonometry what is used to determine trajectory of missile fire? I use Geometry and Algebra in martial arts training and theory. Speed+Distance=Power. I am not the biggest fan of math as well but do find it useful for calculating how many opponents I am facing. Building stuff also requires mat5h and that is where I most use it. Mostly the number is what is stressed but the number only represents something...for example 80 Headless Corpses.
I find it very strange that no accidental deaths have been incorporated in these theories.
When i lived in Roman Britain, our butcher suffered a terrible freak accident. He fell on his hacking block while cleaving some wild boar, and the cleaver cut deep into his jaw... when he then fell to the side of the block, his body hit a broom, of which the stick hit one of the hanging pieces of meat, causing them to fly all through the shop, dislodging his axe from the wall, which fell and decapitated the poor sod......
hock:
twisted:
M.VIB.M.