Do archaeologists overcomplicate the past?

[Viggen]

Do archaeologists overcomplicate the past? Are we seeing ritual everywhere? What do you think?

 

"Ritual this

[Klingan]

Well, I can't but agree. We know far less about the past than what our textbooks would have us believe.

[Melvadius]

Some of the comments on the original website are pertinent to this question particularly that recenty posted by 'Kirsten' which boils down to the fact that what goes into scientific/ archaeological reports will often include several pages of discussion about why a particular site may show signs of 'ritual' activity.

 

What the 'ritual' is or may have involved could vary significantly from activities at other sites of the same period. However what gets reported in the media is generally only that 'they all show signs of ritual activity'.

 

The problem comes with several eminent or would-be eminent archaeologists (and others) who write reams of books, which most archaeologists accept as straight out of the 'twiglet zone', describing at great length and in great detail what those 'rituals' were based on little or no real evidence. The media gobble these up and invite such authors to pontificate on a regular basis while the archaeologist who originally excavated the sites and discussed their 'actual' findings are often ignored.

[GhostOfClayton]

The trouble with the past is that there's a hell of a lot of it. Anyone who tries to interpret history by digging up negligible quantititles of it is either very naive, or in need of a grant for their next dig.

[Melvadius]

Which is why archaeologists prefer to use 'targeted' excavations looking to address specific questions in as structured a way as possible.

 

So anyone considering supporting my future excavations with a suitably large donation is always welcome to PM me.

 

BTW I was reminded of the 'true' archaeological definition of 'ritual' last night, which is loosely as follows:

 

We have tested/ considered all the usual hypotheseses and we still haven't got the ******* idea what was happening here

[Viggen]

...what will be the challenges for archaeologists of the future? With globalisation and museums having artifacts from all over the world in one place, the job for archaeologist of the future seems to be a even worse guessing game than now? (assuming that nothing lasts forever and there is a similar break up of todays society followed by a new "dark age" with a new rennaisance etc... )

[DecimusCaesar]

I remember a tounge in cheek comment in an old copy of British Archaeology magazine which stated that whenever an archaeologist doesn't understand something, he/she puts it down to religion or ritual. I suppose there is some truth in this. Still, it can be difficult to put an object into context. Think of the ongoing debate about culture in archaeological circles, and whether some forms of pottery or art constitute the presence of a group of people. Once it was considered that the unique presence of 'beaker' pottery in British graves was a sign that Beaker peoples from the continent had invaded or migrated to Britain in the Bronze Age. Now archaeologists are not so sure, and are reluctant to use such labels. Unfortunately because of this reluctance they over complicate the past. Archaeology books are now filled with almost 'post-modernist' sections about which terms and names are acceptable to use when describing ancient cultures or peoples, which can only confuse and over complicate the subject. As long as they are able to agree that some terms such as 'Beaker people' is a broad scientific construct then there should be no problem.

[caldrail]

The question of whether 'people struggled to stay alive' is circumstantial, not an assumed fact, and many primitive peoples get along quite happily today without undue worry (and most of their concerns are caused by modern society poking its commercial and military nose in)

 

The thing often forgetten is that archaeology isn't just about digging up bits and pieces from the ground, it's about context - why those pieces are there, what they mean. In general a broken sherd of pottery does little m ore than indicate culture and period, nothing more, but its placement can change that significance, as archaeologists are only too keenly aware of the rubbish people in the past left behind.

 

The thing is, it's possible to tell, with enough evidence, how much struggle people went through in their daily lives. "Making your daily bread" was a tough chore for neolithic peoples as the arrival of superior agriculture meant they had to resort to physical labour to exploit it. Skeletal remains display the results of constant hunching over a millstone for instance. Firstly, they had enough grain as far as we can tell. Second, someone in the family went to a lot of trouble to feed the family.

 

What we see in the early bronze age is a period of plenty. I'm not sure why, presumably the farming methods were getting better and the slow introduction of metal tools was a boon. In the middle Bronze Age, there's a rapid increase in the population of Britain (after the megalithic religious sites like Stonehenge and Avebury had closed). At the same time, a huge surplus of bronze axe heads that were never used as tools appears - why? The two are part of the same phenomenon, and can be construed, even by a non-expert like me - as a parallel increase in personal entrepeurism, materialism, and changes in family emphasis.

 

There are of course writers who want to sell books and thus sensationalise the past. Television is by far the worst offender mind you, although some documentaries are very responsible and quite revealing.