04-19-2004, 09:51 PM
Vincula<br>
<br>
How many? Dont know... go through any excavation catalog and start counting. Most publications don't go into the grey areas. Just what will build strong papers. There was a wood spindle and dish like object found inside a Gallic G, I think. Undoubtedly "religiously significant", since the actual function is unknown. How does this relate? You miss the point. You build a model of Roman ideology, social structure, and economy (intangibles) from the remnant artifacts (tangibles). You abstract a complex model of what was going on, say, at Kalkrese, from a set of hypothesis that remain after multiple quantitative analysis tests eliminates as many as possible.<br>
<br>
Method and Theory can be developed and tested in societies not the target society... much of archeology is adaptation from someone else's work done elsewhere. Reconstruction archaeology is is not unknown in explaining the equipment of the Roman Army. This is a lot of what reenactors do, I think.<br>
<br>
Also, see Petculescu's work on armour paltes used in the field, not in a 'sports' or 'parade' context. An example of an original ceremonial interpretation of an object based on an assumption of a style pattern thought to be "too complex" by modern perceptions to be used in a utilitarian function.<br>
<br>
Some of you involved in excavation in Europe can better answerer Vincula's comment.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gaiusdeciusaquilius@romanarmytalk>Gaius Decius Aquilius</A> at: 4/20/04 12:35 am<br></i>
<br>
How many? Dont know... go through any excavation catalog and start counting. Most publications don't go into the grey areas. Just what will build strong papers. There was a wood spindle and dish like object found inside a Gallic G, I think. Undoubtedly "religiously significant", since the actual function is unknown. How does this relate? You miss the point. You build a model of Roman ideology, social structure, and economy (intangibles) from the remnant artifacts (tangibles). You abstract a complex model of what was going on, say, at Kalkrese, from a set of hypothesis that remain after multiple quantitative analysis tests eliminates as many as possible.<br>
<br>
Method and Theory can be developed and tested in societies not the target society... much of archeology is adaptation from someone else's work done elsewhere. Reconstruction archaeology is is not unknown in explaining the equipment of the Roman Army. This is a lot of what reenactors do, I think.<br>
<br>
Also, see Petculescu's work on armour paltes used in the field, not in a 'sports' or 'parade' context. An example of an original ceremonial interpretation of an object based on an assumption of a style pattern thought to be "too complex" by modern perceptions to be used in a utilitarian function.<br>
<br>
Some of you involved in excavation in Europe can better answerer Vincula's comment.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gaiusdeciusaquilius@romanarmytalk>Gaius Decius Aquilius</A> at: 4/20/04 12:35 am<br></i>
