Phew! When I saw your title, I thought it was a comment on the level of RAT discussion so far, Moi.
hock:
And I thought you (Dr Campbell) must have managed to make it through Punt PI
I'll be at the AIA Annual meeting, but set up with a display at the Archaeology Fair on Saturday January 7. I'm already planning to ask a couple friends to go to a couple presentations on Saturday to take notes!
And yes, peoples' discards and trash can say a lot about them. It says a lot about us modern folks, too! And, for example, digging through the latrine waste at Roman military sites has told us something of the soldiers' diets and also about their health, via finds of intestinal parasites and the like.
Saw the article elsewhere, but thanks for posting it here. Interesting!
And a great thread title! :-D
Quote:Phew! When I saw your title, I thought it was a comment on the level of RAT discussion so far, Moi. hock:
As if I would!!!
Still think the Honey Cakes thread is the best one so far though... :wink:
Quote:I'll be at the AIA Annual meeting, but set up with a display at the Archaeology Fair on Saturday January 7. I'm already planning to ask a couple friends to go to a couple presentations on Saturday to take notes!
May I please ask if you will share your friends' notes with us?
Personally I do have a problem with Archaeology and what is so often readily dismissed as being trash. One of the shore forts namely Caister had evidence of what was identified as being rubbish being piled up and then faced off with a terracotta edge. Additionally there is the presence of coin hoards being placed in what is referred to as a static rubbish dump(Darling and Gurney 1993, 65-8).
This to me suggests something along the lines of votive offerings as typically the Romans dug pits for their rubbish; placing a terraced edge in front of rubbish when it would have been far less trouble to bury it seems pointless.
As votive offerings could include cooked, or uncooked food, plates, pots, and dishes broken or whole, Archaeologists revel in placing items in context. Therefore anything near to an obvious altar is an offering and everywhere else it is just trash.
Darling, M.J and Gurney, D. 1993 in P.Wade-Martins(ed.), Caister On Sea Excavations By Charles Green 1951-1955,65-68, East Anglian Archaeology, Report No60.
Quote:Personally I do have a problem with Archaeology and what is so often readily dismissed as being trash. One of the shore forts namely Caister had evidence of what was identified as being rubbish being piled up and then faced off with a terracotta edge. Additionally there is the presence of coin hoards being placed in what is referred to as a static rubbish dump(Darling and Gurney 1993, 65-8).
This to me suggests something along the lines of votive offerings as typically the Romans dug pits for their rubbish; placing a terraced edge in front of rubbish when it would have been far less trouble to bury it seems pointless.
As votive offerings could include cooked, or uncooked food, plates, pots, and dishes broken or whole, Archaeologists revel in placing items in context. Therefore anything near to an obvious altar is an offering and everywhere else it is just trash.
Darling, M.J and Gurney, D. 1993 in P.Wade-Martins(ed.), Caister On Sea Excavations By Charles Green 1951-1955,65-68, East Anglian Archaeology, Report No60.
Whilst I can agree with your comment in terms of having a problem with the
interpretation of the archaeology as viewed at the time and with other references also available for comparison at the time, without context archaeology as a science - or an art - cannot exist.
Sometimes it is the context of the artefact rather than the artefact itself which is truly important.
And that's what makes it SUCH fun :wink:
Well yes I did manage to grasp that concept about context :oops: and I can appreciate that every potential post hole has to be swiftly assessed before it dries out. It just seems that some published assessments are a tad flaky though of course it's so easy to be critical.