Category: Archaeology

Archaeology and Pop Culture: The Commercialization of a Study

The study of archaeology has seemingly undergone a transformation within the past few decades with the public interest in the field growing to unprecedented levels. In order to meet this demand, various organizations such as the National Geographic Society have created programs geared to show the world of archaeology to the general public. While such actions are a step in the right direction towards increasing public awareness of the value of learning about humanity’s historical past and origins one must wonder whether the rampant commercialization is not adversely affecting the field itself.

The article “2,000 year old nails may be tied to the crucifixion” by the Associated Foreign Press details how two Roman nails found in the burial cave of a Jewish high priest, supposedly the very one who handed Jesus Christ to the Romans to be crucified, are now assumed to be the very nails used in the crucifixion of Christ himself (AFP Global Edition 2011). First and foremost, what must be understood is that with the inexorable march of human progress details regarding the past are often buried and forgotten under layers of dust and sand, the result is that when sites and artifacts are often uncovered the precise detail behind their original meaning and use is often lost to the annals of history and it is up to the archaeologist to discern what is fact from basically wild speculation.

In the case of the two Roman nails, an Israeli filmmaker and documentarian Simcha Jacobvici immediately made the sensational connection between the nails and that of the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that Jacobvici is the creator of the popular archeological series “The Naked Archeologist”, commonly broadcast on the History channel (AFP Global Edition 2011). In this particular case, the article presents distinct divisiveness in the world of archeology between the academic archaeologist and his pop-culture counterpart the enterprising documentarian.

For seasoned archeologists, the presence of nails within a tomb, despite an apparent connection to Christ, cannot be immediately attributed to them being the very ones used in the crucifixion. During the Roman Era, thousands of people were crucified and at times the nails used for the crucifixions were in fact recycled. To immediately connect the nails to those used by Christ without any evidence to back up such claims is verging on academic dishonesty.

Yet filmmakers and documentarians who use archaeology in their various films are at times not concerned with historical accuracy but rather on the controversy and interest their films create which increase the likelihood that they will be viewed. For me, this article is important in that it clearly shows the divisive culture that is currently encompassing the field of archeology wherein the validity of academic rigor is being contested by the cheapness of entertainment value.

Similar in context to the finding of the nails of Jesus comes the article “Noah’s Ark found in Turkey”. It explains how a group of evangelical Christian explorers supposedly found the ark used by Noah during the great flood which inevitably found itself perched on the top of Mount Ararat in Turkey (Than 2010). One thing I learned in class regarding the origins of human heritage is that not all stories should be believed, in this particular case it is the story of Noah and Ark.

While I do not intend in any way to disparage the faith of Christians and Catholics alike the fact remains that it is inconceivable to believe that a large percentage of Earth’s species were able to be accommodated within a structure that would have taken the better part of a century to complete. Similar to the story of the finding of the nails of Christ, this particular “archaeological” discovery neglects to take into account valid facts before making statements.

For one thing, the diversity of species within the Mount Ararat area today is hardly diverse at all compared to areas such as Africa or the Amazon. If a large percentage of species from around the planet had actually been deposited in that location there would be a greater degree of biodiversity and fossilized remains explaining as such. Once again academic archaeology which prides itself on scientific reasoning takes a backseat to sensationalist claims which further deteriorates the credibility of the field.

What must be learned from this article is the fact that people have become so obsessed with the concept of discovery that they neglect to learn the proper history and facts behind it before making associations (Than 2010). In fact, this very method of sensationalistic findings is a worrying trend in the field of archaeology since it gives the general public the wrong idea behind what the true process of archaeological discovery should be like.

The article “the lost city of Atlantis” presents a sensationalistic view regarding the presence of the lost city of Atlantis under the marshlands of the Dona Ana Park located within Southern Spain (MSNBC 2011). While I am not immediately stating that I don’t believe that the research team’s hypothesis is wrong what I would like to say is that they are being too presumptuous with their immediate assumption. One thing I learned in class regarding archaeological discoveries is that at times people see what they want to see which in turn skews the data in favor of what the archaeologists want it to portray.

For example, previous studies attempting to discover the Atlantian civilization posited that mustaches seen on various Incan stone portraits were indicative of an advanced civilization visiting the Incans and teaching them how to build their stone structures. What these theorists assume is that since the Incan’s did not sport beards or mustaches similar to those seen in Ancient Greek civilization then it can be assumed that it was elements of a Greek civilization that escaped the destruction of Atlantis that is being portrayed in the various stone portraits.

Unfortunately for supporters of this theory studies investigating the ancient Incan civilization do indicate that they did indeed have facial hair and that beards and mustaches are not the exclusive property of the ancient Greeks.

What this article does is that it further exemplifies the sensationalism that has been attached to archaeological discovery without solid proof to back it up. Lately, sensationalism without solid proof has become more prevalent in the public eye compared to actual discoveries with research to back up the claims (MSNBC 2011). What I learned from this article is that even experts in archaeology are apt to fall into the sensationalistic mindset that has developed as of late. While there is nothing wrong with rejoicing when a theory has been proven there is something to be said about sensationalizing something before adequate evidence can be presented.

Antiquities: Fakes and Originals Side by Side

As noted by noted anthropology professor, Charles Stanish, of the University of California, Los Angeles there is actually an embarrassingly large amount of fakes in the various collections scattered throughout most of today’s antiquity exhibits. In the article “Art, authenticity, and the market in Pre-Columbian antiquities” what is elaborated on is the growing level of expertise of various workshops around the world in which they create fakes of such exacting detail that at times they even have the potential to fool so-called “antiquity experts” (Joyce 2011).

The reason behind this is simple, as the wealth of human knowledge grows so do the various descriptions pertaining to various artifacts researched and categorized become available to forgers who then use this information to create their forgeries (Joyce 2011). Such items have become available on various street corners in Egypt, Mexico, and China, even on websites such as eBay all in their attempt to fool buyers into obtaining a piece of history (Joyce 2011).

Based on what I learned in class the inherent problem with forgeries is not that they are being sold to the general public but rather their increasing level of sophistication has actually caused many archaeologists to assume different ideas regarding various aspects of human heritage which in fact are based on nothing but a fake item. This of course creates the possibility of “academic pollution” in the greater context of understanding human origin since such information may be used in the future in order to examine various aspects of ancient human society and will as a result create anomalous findings.

This particular article actually portrays archaeology as a defunct science that cannot effectively tell originals from the fakes. The fact is human ingenuity coupled with sufficient time and effort can fool even the sharpest minds as evidenced by the variety of fakes found in museums. As such, what I learned from this particular article is that as technology continues to grow so to will the fakes inundate the market leading to a nightmarish situation wherein the study of archaeology will change from trying to determine the history of antiques into trying to determine what is real and what is not.

In the article “Fake Silver Dollars From China” it is seen that the creation of fakes as seen in the article “Art, authenticity, and the market in Pre-Columbian antiquities”, is not limited to ancient pieces of antiquities that are part of age-old historical cultures but rather extend to time periods within the past 200 years or so (Goldsborough 2010). The creation of fake silver dollars and various other coins and collectibles from America’s time periods has actually become a booming business for several Chinese entrepreneurs wherein through the use of the internet they are able to reach a global market of individuals willing to pay top dollar for supposedly original merchandise which is in fact fakes (Goldsborough 2010).

It must be noted that while archaeologists do not condone the sale of antiquities from civilizations that have long been wiped clean from the face of the Earth, they are however supportive of industries involving the sale of various artifacts from recent historical periods. Based on what I learned in class I can say with certainty that the inundation of fakes into the current sales circuit in antiquities does nothing to support the industry but rather is far more effective as a death knell towards its continued existence.

What must be taken into consideration is the fact that the current sale of various antiquities such as types of old currency is in fact the only methods that archaeologists can utilize to examine objects that normally are kept well hidden from prying eyes. In this particular case, the article portrays archaeology as an ineffective science in preventing the inundation of fakes since not only are the artifacts nearly indistinguishable from originals, chemical testing can also come up as inconclusive due to various aging techniques that can be utilized on the metal.

The reason why this particular article should be considered important is due to the fact that various artifacts such as silver dollars are an important aspect of the cultural heritage of American society. Even if it is not apparent now eventually people will start to be derisive over cultural artifacts since the rarity that makes them special has gone away to be replaced by the overabundance of knock off pieces of culture that are far from beneficial towards effectively helping any progress towards promoting a nation’s heritage.

Forgeries being passed off as originals is nothing new in today’s modern society with people able to buy “priceless” pieces of ancient cultures for apparently a few hundred dollars off of ebay. On the other hand, few people were as skeptical back then as they are today with various sensational pieces of archaeological significance winding up in museums and being considered 100% authentic, case and point the finding of the relics of Joan of Arc (Viegas 2011).

In 1867 a small bottle was located in a pharmacy with a label distinctly stating “there are the remains found under the pyre of Joan of Arc, maiden of Orleans” (Viegas 2011). Based on what I’ve learned in class regarding the need for scientific thinking and evidence before making judgments on any item of archaeological significance one must wonder why a bottle with a label stating it contained the remains of Joan of Arc was immediately considered authentic at the time.

When the remains were examined recently using forensic pathology techniques they were discovered to have come from an ancient Egyptian mummy and the cloth scrap where the note was scribbled on was similarly from the cloth used to embalm mummies which were identified due to its unique chemical mixture that contained various chemicals used in embalming process (Viegas 2011). What this article does in terms of portraying archaeology is that it casts a negative light on nearly all discoveries of a sensationalistic nature and posits the question of whether or not a large percentage of what has been discovered is actually real or are fakes.

It has already been proven that ancient fakes do exist and as such the authenticity of various “discoveries” must be subject to the lens of scientific inquiry in order to ensure the integrity of the science of archaeology. What makes this article important is the fact that it shows that fakes can be anywhere and everywhere, in any museum around the planet or in various private collections. As such, it casts a distinct light on the science of archaeology wherein not only must an archaeologist become a discoverer of ancient truths but he must also be a chemist, biologist, and forensic pathologist in order to effectively tell fakes from originals. This could be indicative of a growing shift in the field due to advances in science that cast a new light on old discoveries.

Liberating Countries and Treasures

Most of the world was watching as the Egyptian people rallied against their government regime resulting in the liberation of Egypt from the dictatorial rule of Hosni Mubarak yet what most people didn’t see was the pilfering going on in various antiquities storage depots and in Qantara and in other parts of the city. In the article “Experts fret over Egypt’s treasures and ancient sites” it is shown that the street battles that took place a little over a month ago acted as the perfect distraction for thieves who raided these locations and stole various artifacts unique to the Egyptian people (AFP 2011).

Most of what was stolen consisted of easily transportable items however as stated by the British Museum in London “all artifacts housed in Egyptian museums are objects with unique importance to world heritage” (AFP 2011). While there have been unsubstantiated reports of what has actually been stolen, Zahi Hawas, the recently appointed minister of antiquities, did mention that while several items have been a broker in the museum they can be restored and the rest recovered through official or unofficial means (AFP 2011).

What this article shows about archaeology is that despite the science taking great care to preserve artifacts for future generations of humanity the fact remains that openly displaying them in museums practically invites people to steal them. Based on what I learned in class I can say that the purpose of artifacts as an educational tool is incalculable however the fact remains that current practices of the display may in fact result in their destruction or disappearance one day.

This creates a debate in the field whether artifacts should truly be displayed or fake replicas are put in their place in order to better preserve such objects for future study and archiving. The subject of this article is important to take note of since it represents a real danger that artifacts in the future may potentially face. The fact remains that any number of calamities whether man-made or natural disaster may one day damage such the delicate structures housing them, as such one must question the logic of displaying humanity’s treasures so openly in an evidently chaotic world.

Most people think that artifacts come in the form of objects and treasures, the fact is most of the time artifacts come in the form of places and things. In relation to the previous article involving the looting of artifacts the article “the garden tomb where Jesus rose again” presents the argument that it is this location and not that of the church of the Holy Sepulcher that is the real tomb of Jesus (Mitchell 2010). The reason why I relate this article to that involving theft is that in a way this “other tomb of Jesus” steals concepts and ideas related to the story of Jesus and presents them in a manner that seems to be a compelling argument but arguably contains a lot of plot holes.

Based on what I learned in class the fact is any claim, historical or otherwise, must present enough compelling evidence to justify its statements. In this particular instance, the article mentions that the justification for that particular tomb being the tomb of Jesus is based on the fact that it is a tomb, has a garden, and that the natural cistern located underneath the tomb meant that thousands of years ago the area would have also held a natural garden similar to what was described in the bible (Mitchell 2010). What the site owners fail to mention is any conclusive evidence showing ownership by Joseph of Arimathea.

This article portrays archeology as a field that apparently anyone can enter and stake a claim to. Unfortunately, this results in claims such as this one which is basically unfounded on actual concrete facts and instead relies solely on assumptions. While it may be true that archeology itself assumes many things the fact is these assumptions are usually supported by conclusive facts and not by even more assumptions. The subject of this particular article is important in that it reveals how it is not only artifacts themselves that can be stolen but the very concept behind them as well. People can construct “archaeological” claims to further their own ends and yet such claims are often thought of as fact despite the utter lack of evidence to prove their validity.

So far I have shown how artifacts can be stolen by people and how ideas can be stolen to create artifacts in this particular case I will show how nations can steal against nations. The article “Egypt’s stolen artifact wish list”, details how various artifacts associated with the Egyptian culture have found themselves entrenched in various museum collections around the world (Muller 2010). I use the word entrenched in order to reference the fact that such artifacts will most likely remain in those museums if the curators have anything to say about it.

Throughout the various lessons I have learned in this class one specific fact stands out among the rest, namely, the fact that artifacts connected to a country’s history and past are a part of human heritage and must be protected and preserved in order to understand our origins and let future generations seem them as well. In this particular case, the concept of “global heritage” comes into the spotlight as the defining factor behind the debate over Egypt’s artifacts in other museums.

While it may be true that such artifacts belong to Egypt the fact remains that through the proliferation of ancient Egyptian lore in the modern world the culture and distinction that was ancient Egypt is no longer something isolated to the country itself but rather has captured the fascination of a global audience. It is due to this distinction that such artifacts are considered a part of the “global heritage” of humanity and not just of Egypt itself. In this particular case, the article portrays the field of archaeology in two distinct ways: for one it makes it seem that archaeology steals treasures from one country and deposits them in another.

While such an assumption is true for previous cases involving archaeology in the past this is not applicable to archaeology in the present where strict guidelines are met in order to ensure archeological treasures remain in their country of origin. The second way archaeology is portrayed is a manner in which it is shown to contribute to the concept of “global heritage” wherein the various archaeological discoveries shown around the world in several museums help humanity as a whole understand the facets of the various past cultures that have inhabited the Earth. The reason why the subject in the article is important lies with what can be defined as human heritage.

Should heritage be specified on a country by country basis as defined by Egypt in its request for its artifacts to be returned or should it be defined in terms of a global heritage where everyone is entitled to consider the artifacts as rightfully belonging to the world as shown by the attitudes of the museums refusing to return the artifacts to Egypt?

Practices Carrying Over from the Past into the Present

Archaeology has always concerned itself with the events of the past since not only do they show how human society and grown and changed over the millennia but also how certain practices carry over from the past and into the present. In the article “ancient debit card discovered”, readers are introduced to the first concept of what is now known as the debit card (The Local 2011). It is a simple tally stick with various notches carved into the side as a method of identification with various markings on both sides of the stick to be used to indicate the amount due (The Local 2011).

The practice as hypothesized by the researches was that the amount due was carved into the stick with the stick being split lengthwise after the notches were completed (The Local 2011). Both the creditor and the borrower in question would keep each half of the stick in order to indicate the amount needed to be paid and as a means of identification, on the day of repayment, both halves would be joined together in order to confirm the amount of debt to be paid (The Local 2011).

Based on what I learned in class I can surmise that this particular practice is actually an aspect of human heritage that carried over into the present day in the form of current day banking practices. Though far more evolved than the procedures they used before the practices utilized are still basically the same. As such based on this it can be said that the current practices of the modern banking industry did not come about recently but are actually based on old practices. In this case, the article portrays archeology as a means of connecting past practices with modern methods and finding the connection between the practices.

All in all, it can clearly be seen that there is a definite connection between the two with current methods being the zenith of the practices established back then. The reason why the subject of this article is important is that it shows a definite connection between ancient and modern practices. Most people when asked about the modern-day banking industry and the use of credit cards, debit cards, and checking accounts always seem to assume that it was only within the past 200 years or so that the current methods of banking came about. Based on the findings stated in the article it can be seen that the wealth of human heritage extends so far into the past that what was done then has a definite impact on what we do today which facilitates the need for further examination of past practices and their implications on modern society.

In relation to past practices carrying over into the modern-day era, the concept of luck and its ability to influence human destiny has been an- going theme in human society for quite some time. In the article “gold phallic find in Norfolk” a Roman pendant made of gold shaped in the shape of a penis was found among others similarly fashioned but wrought of cheaper base metals (Past Horizons 2011). These pendants found in various areas throughout the British Isles were thought to be connected to Roman soldiers since a vast majority of them were found in areas that are known to be sites of Roman occupation (Past Horizons 2011).

These items were thought to protect the wearer from harm and as such were prominently worn by Roman soldiers during various campaigns in the area (Past Horizons 2011). Similar to the concept mentioned earlier which evolved into the modern-day banking system this particular case shows a distinct trait from our shared human heritage that has been passed on to the present. Historically, the use of amulets to ward off evil, bring luck, or protect oneself from physical harm has been a predominant trait in human society that manifests itself today in the belief of luck, safety, or protection coming from various miniature inanimate objects.

A lucky rabbit’s foot, monkey hand, a lucky hat, underwear, shirt, etc., are concepts that have become so ubiquitous with our current culture that few consider such belief to be overly strange and unusual. As such the concept of luck being derived from an object shaped like a penis does not seem as strange compared to the belief in a decapitated animal limb bringing luck to the bearer. In this particular article, archaeology is portrayed as a method of determining the origin of certain facets of human belief and culture. It shows how certain cultural habits in ancient civilizations live on carrying onto in the present.

Whether we know it or not, certain facets of what is known as “human heritage’ carry on in our present-day society. As cultures change and evolve certain societal and behavioral changes occur however as archaeology shows in this article certain beliefs carry on and could be considered an inherent facet of human cultures. It even is considered the responsibility of archaeology to determine where in history such facets originally developed in order for us to understand why such a feature of human heritage has continued on to the present. The subject of this article is important because it shows how certain aspects of our beliefs and behavioral perceptions are in fact not recently developed but rather are echoes from the past.

The concept of luck and lucky items has been a belief that actually transcends cultures and eras and is a facet of human heritage that transcends literally all barriers in the form of race, culture, or ethnicity. This article shows that this behavioral concept is not limited to the present-day human civilization, nor is it limited to human civilization a few hundred years in the past, rather, it continues for thousands of years into the past. As such this poses an interesting question regarding the origin of the concept of luck and how it developed into being thought of as originating from an object a person had a time.

In relation to the earlier articles of aspects of the past carrying on to the future, the article “oldest leather shoe discovered” details the finding of the oldest leather shoe in the world dating back at least 5,500 years. It was discovered, along with a few other artifacts, in a cave from Armenia. At 5,500 years this shoe predates the pyramids constructed at Giza by at least 1,000 years and is even older than Stonehenge by about 400 years (BBC News 2010). While today the practice of wearing footwear is a generally accepted tradition few people have really come to terms as to why we wear shoes in the first place.

Based on the concepts I learned from human heritage I can say that the concept of the shoe is actually something that originated from various ancient civilizations and is a carry-over of their unique cultural traits. An examination of the piece of footwear left behind shows that it follows the same design used today despite its primitive construction (BBC News 2010). Similar to the other two articles examined this article portrays archaeology as a method of discerning how traits, even fashion sense, traverses time and culture and incorporates themselves into the present day.

Archaeology here is shown to be a beneficial practice since not only was it able to determine the value of find but through the scientific method, it was able to pinpoint from which particular time period the shoe came from thus increasing its overall performance. The reason why the subject of this particular article is important lies with the fact that our culture continues to change and grow we continue to lose sight of the generations that came before us and what they have already accomplished.

This article helps to prove that even after thousands of years of change we still implement the same type of designs used by our ancestors. As such, the shoe in the article represents a link into the past wherein trying to decipher the motivations human behavior archaeology discerns more than just objects but rather the history behind them.

Bibliography

BBC News. 2010. Oldest Leather Shoe discovered. Electronic Document. Web.

Past Horizons. 2011. Golden phallic find in Norfolk. Electronic Document. Web.

The Local. 2011. Ancient debit card discovered in Saxony-Anhalt. Electronic Document. Web.

AFP Global Edition. 2011. 2,000-year-old nails may be tied to crucifixion. Electronic Document. Web.

MSNBC News. 2011 Lost city of Atlantis believed found off Spain. Electronic Document. Web.

Than, Ker. 2010. Noah’s Ark Found in Turkey. Electronic Document. Web.

Goldsborough, Reid. 2010. Fake Silver Dollars in China. Electronic Document. Web.

Joyce, Rosemary. 2011. Art authenticity and the market in Precolumbian antiquities. Electronic Document. Web.

Viegas, Jennifer. 2011. Joan of Arc Relics Confirmed to be fake. Electronic Document. Web.

AFP Global Edition. 2011. Experts fret for Egypt’s treasures, ancient sites. Electronic Document. Web.

Mitchell, Chris. 2010. The Garden Tomb: Where Jesus Rose Again. Electronic Document. Web.

Muller, Sarah. 2010. Egypt’s Stolen Artifact Wishlist. Electronic Document. Web.

Throughout history, archaeological endeavours have resulted in the discovery of sites with a diverse and rich historical heritage. One example of these discoveries is Pompeii, which is a popular archaeological site situated in the Campania region of Italy. History relates that Pompeii was a prosperous Roman town near the present-day Bay of Naples. In the year 79 AD, the town was buried under multiple layers of volcanic ashes, pumice and other forms of debris when the adjacent volcano, Mount Vesuvius erupted.

In light of this brief background, the discovery of Pompeii as an archaeological site was thus a rediscovery of the ancient town of Pompeii. Intriguingly, the site was discovered and reburied only to be rediscovered a century and a half later. On the first occasion, workers digging an underground channel meant to divert river Sarno bumped into the ancient walls of the long-forgotten town, but Domenico Fontana, the architect in charge, saw it fit to rebury the site due to the sexual explicitness of the items and imagery they came across. The official discovery of Pompeii as an archaeological site occurred in 1748. On this occasion, the discovery resulted from a deliberate excavation by Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre.

After the official discovery of Pompeii, excavation efforts intensified under the stewardship of Karl Weber. Francesco La Vega succeeded him, in 1764. La Vega remained in charge of the excavation at Pompeii until 1804 when his brother Pietro took over. Pietro’s efforts to oversee the excavation at Pompeii were reinforced by Christophe Saliceti when the French took over the region.

In 1863, Giuseppe Fiorelli took over the reins of leadership as the director of excavation at Pompeii. His leadership added a new dimension to the excavation. He was the first director to take notice of the hollows that were left by the bodies of dead people, animals and plants and came up with a mechanism of injecting plaster into the hollows to recreate their shapes. In addition, he introduced a novel method of excavation, which enhanced the preservation of most of the items that were unearthed. Previously, streets were uncovered first so that workers would excavate buildings from the ground towards the roof. Fiorelli’s approach, on the other hand, entailed excavating from the top towards the ground to allow more data to be collected from the debris that covered the town was loose and needed careful handling.

After Fiorelli, there followed Michele Ruggiero, Giulio De Petra, Ettore Pais, Antonio Sogliano, and Vittorio Spinazzola as overseers of the excavation at Pompeii. During this time, the need to reinstate the roofs of the buildings to preserve frescoes and mosaics in the buildings arose.

The excavation unearthed numerous items, some of which are now preserved at different locations near Pompeii. Others that were not movable are preserved in situ. These recovered items include entire buildings, frescoes, artifacts, and mosaics. Further, the skeletons of people and animals lying in various positions were found in hollows that were left by their decomposed bodies. Most of these discoveries were well preserved since they were not reachable by moisture or air.

The ubiquity of erotic imagery in the Pompeii finds was astounding. Reportedly, almost every artifact that was recovered was hedonistic in nature. In addition, most of the frescoes, paintings and mosaics that were unearthed depicted oversized phalluses or male and female figures copulating in a variety of positions. An extreme example of this imagery features a sculpture of a man copulating with a goat. The sexual explicitness of most of the finds resulted in most of them being concealed until many years later. This aspect also justifies Fontana’s decision to rebury Pompeii the first time it was discovered.

Despite the controversies associated with the items that were found in Pompeii, the site has been open to visitors for over 250 years now. About two-thirds of the ancient town stand excavated giving visitors a wide area to explore. Pompeii reportedly attracts close to three million visitors annually. The ever-growing number of visitors has occasioned concerns over the pressure on the site. Efforts have been undertaken to redirect visitors to neighboring attractions to ease the pressure.

The key attractions at Pompeii include the buildings, frescoes, and the ruins of the once state-of-the-art facilities such as the amphitheater and the Temple of Apollo. It is however important to point out that despite two-thirds of the town having been excavated, only less than a third of the excavated area is open to visitors. Most buildings are only viewed from the outside. The artifacts that were moved from Pompeii are mostly preserved in the Naples National Archaeological Museum not far from Pompeii. UNESCO declared Pompeii a World Heritage site in the year 1997. In addition, it stands out as an important part of Vesuvius National Park. Apparently, there is more to Pompeii than meets the eye, making it a point of interest for many years to come.

Introduction

Archaeology is a fascinating field of study that sheds light on ancient civilizations’ history, culture, and beliefs. By excavating and analyzing archaeological sites, researchers can better understand the civilizations that previously flourished and their influence on the globe. One such site is Mohenjo-Daro in Pakistan, which is considered to be a significant cultural and architectural center of the region. Mohenjo-Daro is considered one of the most advanced urban settlements of the ancient world, with its discovery providing significant insights into the ancient history of South Asia.

The Discovery of Mohenjo-Daro

Mohenjo-Daro, on the other hand, is one of the most significant archaeological sites in South Asia, located in the province of Sindh in present-day Pakistan. The site is regarded as one of the largest and best-preserved towns of the ancient Indus Valley Civilization, which flourished between 3300 BCE and 1300 BCE (Iqbal, 2021). Mohenjo-Daro was discovered in the 1920s by a team of British archaeologists led by Sir John Marshall. Excavations at the site revealed a well-planned city with advanced drainage, water management, and urban planning systems (Iqbal, 2021). The town also has diverse and sophisticated architecture, including public buildings, residential structures, and religious temples. This ancient city’s discovery marked a turning point in South Asia’s history since it exposed a previously unrecognized civilization.

Historical Documentation

The writings of early historians and travelers serve as the primary source of information on Mohenjo-Daro’s past. The city was first referenced in writing during the 19th century, when Alexander Burnes, a British army officer, described the remnants of an old city while traveling through the area (Singh, 2020). Herodotus, a Greek historian, made reference to a place close to the Indus River, which is thought to be Mohenjo-Daro. Xuanzang, a Chinese Buddhist monk who traveled to the area in the seventh century, described a metropolis with well-planned streets and structures built of burned bricks (Robinson, 2021). Mohenjo-Daro, however, has limited historical documentation; therefore, most of what we do know about this ancient city is based on archaeological findings.

The Indus script, one of Mohenjo-Daro’s most noteworthy features, is the primary cause of its paucity of information. It is a writing system that has not yet been fully understood. The writing is visible on seals, ceramics, and other artifacts, but its meaning is still undetermined (Yadav, 2019). Academics have undertaken numerous attempts to interpret the script, but none have been successful so far.

The well-preserved city infrastructure provides a glimpse of the urban planning and engineering skills of its inhabitants. Furthermore, the objects discovered at the site offer insights into the culture, technology, and trade of the Indus Valley Civilization. Although there is some historical documentation of the city in the Indus script and in the travel and historical writings of the past, little is known about the civilization that called the region home.

The Great Bath of Mohenjo-Daro

One of the most impressive structures at Mohenjo-Daro is the Great Bath, considered one of the earliest examples of public bathing in the ancient world. The Bath was lined with bricks and had a sophisticated water drainage and storage system, indicating a high level of technical skill and urban planning (Iqbal, 2021). Another significant structure at Mohenjo-Daro is the Great Granary, which was used to store food and grain. The granary was constructed on a high platform and was created using sun-dried bricks and mud mortar (Iqbal, 2021). This demonstrates the advanced building techniques and the importance placed on food storage in the city.

The Mohenjo-Daro artifacts have also shed light on the Indus Valley Civilization’s technology and culture. The pottery that was discovered there implies that the inhabitants were accomplished potters who utilized a potter’s wheel (Yadav, 2019). There are beads made of gold, silver, and valuable stones in the jewelry discovered at the site, indicating that the people of Mohenjo-Daro had a sophisticated trade network. The discovery of several bronze and copper artifacts demonstrates that the inhabitants of Mohenjo-Daro had metallurgical expertise.

The discovery of Mohenjo-Daro has also illuminated the social and economic facets of the Indus Valley Civilization. The city’s construction and the items discovered there indicate that Mohenjo-inhabitants Daro’s had a sophisticated system of government and trade. A well-organized agricultural system can be inferred from the city’s granaries, and a trade and commerce system can be assumed from the discovery of weights and measures.

Mohenjo-Daro’s Sophisticated Urban Planning System

Mohenjo-Daro was also known for its sophisticated urban planning system, including a network of well-laid streets, public spaces, and residential areas. This urban planning system is considered one of the earliest examples of city planning in the ancient world (Iqbal, 2021). It highlights the advanced level of organization and sophistication of the Indus Valley Civilization. The discovery and historical documentation of Mohenjo-Daro has dramatically enhanced the understanding of the Indus Valley Civilization and its impact on the region (Iqbal, 2021). The site provides valuable insights into the beliefs, practices, and architecture of the Indus Valley people. It is considered one of South Asia’s most important archaeological sites.

Mohenjo-Daro also had a diverse range of buildings, including residential, public, and commercial structures. Large public installations, such as the Great Bath and the Granary, highlight the advanced level of governance and administration of the Indus Valley Civilization (Iqbal, 2021). The city also had a thriving marketplace, with evidence of a complex trade network and economic system. In short, Mohenjo-Daro’s sophisticated urban planning system is a testament to the advanced level of urban planning, governance, and administration of the Indus Valley Civilization. It continues to provide valuable insights into this ancient civilization’s social, economic, and political structures and how they interacted with their environment and each other.

Conclusion

Overall, Mohenjo-Daro provides an essential glimpse into the past, illuminating the achievements and complexities of ancient civilizations. It offers a window into the civilizations’ social, economic, political, and religious lives and how they interacted with their environment and each other. The preservation and study of this site continue to provide valuable information and insights that contribute to our understanding of world history and cultural heritage.

The bountiful culture and history embodied in Mohenjo-Daro underscore the importance of preserving and protecting such sites for future generations. Efforts must be made to protect this site from looting, degradation, and destruction. By doing so, we can ensure that future generations have the opportunity to learn from and appreciate the rich cultural heritage of the past.

In conclusion, Mohenjo-Daro is an important archaeological site that provides valuable insights into ancient civilizations’ history, culture, and beliefs. This site’s discovery and historical documentation have greatly enhanced our understanding of the Indus Valley Civilization and its impact on the region. Researchers can discover more about past civilizations and their impact on the world by excavating and examining archaeological sites.

References

Iqbal, S. (2021). Energy Efficiency in Architecture Design in Mohenjo-Daro. In: Mohareb, N., A. Versaci, Y. Mahgoub, S. Maruthaveeran, F. Alberti. (eds) Cities’ vocabularies: The influences and formations. Springer, Cham. Web.

Robinson, A. (2021). The Indus: Lost civilizations. Reaktion Books.

Singh, U. K. (2020). Architectural features of the early Harappan forts. Ancient Punjab, 8, 103-118. Web.

Yadav, N. (2019). Structure of Indus script. Indian Journal of History of Science, 54(2). Web.

Introduction

The article done by Smith et al. (2019) is a comprehensive exploration of the practices for long-term management of artifacts recovered from archaeological excavations. The authors feel that there should be a deep assessment of historical archaeology collections from non-Aboriginal points. There is a ‘rapid assessment system’ that was developed in 2013, and so far, it has been technically applied to more than 150 collections (Smith et al. , 2019). The article presents a case study of the application of important investigation to an archaeological collection that is developed from efficient allocation of resources and management of historical artifacts.

The Response to Curation Crisis

For more than one hundred years, archaeological materials have accumulated in vast deposits due to excavation; hence, it requires protection and proper storage. Due to that issue, here is what has been referred to as the curation crisis, which has led to the formation of legal statutory in many countries to recover archaeological material before they get lost in vast amounts (Schindel & Cook, 2018). Due to the significance of the materials, academic research has collaborated with salvage excavation which has led to the continuous creation of many collections and the elements that can boost conserving the archaeological materials

Reasons for Conservation of Archaeological Materials

Archaeologists say that conserving excavated materials enhances research about the human past when questions are asked about the same. Additionally, excavation of archaeological sites distorts the environment; hence, materials must be retained and taken care of to avoid unnecessary losses. However, the archaeological materials from these sites may not show all the data on past humans (Holdaway,et al., 2018). Thus, there is a need to carefully interact with the deposits to gain educational perspectives and fragment the artifacts in the order of importance.

Excavation of Archaeological Materials: Victorian Perspective

The authors have acknowledged the efforts that have been made in the last twenty years to excavate non-Aboriginal sites in Victoria. That has happened due to development-centric commercial archaeological projects. There has been the creation of legislation that led to archaeological assemblages, making the management of collections in Victoria unique. For example, the Heritage Act of 2017 has been established to leverage the matters of archaeological excavation (Smith,et al., 2019). There is Heritage Victoria (HV) that aids in assisting in matters storage and conservation of materials.

Further Factors in Victorian Context

The HV has assisted in recovering more than 90,000 artifacts from 171 sites around the state (Smith et al., 2019). The materials collected help represent a tangible history of the initial Europeans and the aboriginal people who settled and formed a colonial power in Victoria. Through the Heritage Act and HV, various plans have been successful through general collections and management of permits. Therefore, Victoria state has shown a responsible collaboration in conserving archaeological materials that ease variable values and documentation for funding. HV collections have been necessitated by various long-term strategies for practicing archaeology appropriately, hence showing understanding of the Australian heritage community.

Significance of HV Collections

Through studies conducted by reviewing data from researchers, there is the spatial context in archaeological collections. The HV collections show assemblage status by using relevant and meaningful data to conclude from various perspectives (Holdaway et al., 2018). Through the collections, there is the presentation of historical themes that help leverage the context of diversity. Through the collections, research potential is evident, which helps in realizing accompanying conclusions about the data derived (Smith et al., 2019). Additionally, when the collections are presented, there is an examination of culture and science that can be useful in grouping data and reaching the results.

The Rapid Assessment System

The HV held a desktop study regarding archaeology as one way of developing documentation and drawings of heritage registers. Through the rapid assessment system (RAS), major reports in excavation, electronic catalogues and site cards are maintained to show the cultural and diversity cues in respect to the human past in the Australian context. RAS is two-stage assessment criteria that provide baseline evaluation against a key data criterion (Smith et al., 2019). Through RAS, ignorance of the collections is indicated, and the relative aspect of the matter can be seen in the results. The RAS system was reviewed in consultation with academicians and consultants in archaeological matters.

Stages in the RAS System

The first stage involves a numerical assigning of values by giving all scores available significance and rank in the collection. The values in this stage show the relative importance of HV collections. The collections were grouped after a score was derived as low, moderate and high significance (Smith et al., 2019). In the other stage, a matrix was developed that recovered heritage significance, indicating the management priority for collections (Emerson & Hoffman, 2019). Various criterion was used, such as heritage, documentary and archaeological. By having all these sections in obtaining tangible data, RAS facilitated records of information about collections and the values that must be developed in relation to archaeology.

Discussion Questions

When reviewing the RAS system about HV collections, a reader will be proactive to think about a raft of issues. The first one is the management of artifacts during the process. The question is how possible is it for the researchers to find significant results since not all archaeological materials are useful? (Smith, 2017). The reason that triggers the question is the fact that reliability certain materials may show variance. The obtaining of results is another critical matter since a study must have reflections that help build another research based on the area of interest so that there are no gaps left. Victoria state have a concise plan to conserve the archaeological materials while allowing accessibility of the same to third parties.

Conclusion

The article is about assessing the significance of RAS for historical archaeology collections. The development of the system ensured improvement in artifact management when excavating. The Victoria state has integrated principles and criteria as reflected in Heritage Act. The benefits of RAS included understanding of collections held by HV. Additionally, there was a chance to think of strategies to manage the collections. RAS enabled the provision of a mechanism to retrieve and record reports on knowledge accumulated. The project is of value to others since it can be adapted for academic discoveries. There is the easy articulation of measures to evaluate the significance of collections in Victoria through RAS.

References

Emerson, P., & Hoffman, N. (2019). Technical, political, and social issues in archaeological collections data management. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7(3), 258-266. doi: 10.1017/AAP.2019.19

Holdaway, S., Emmitt, J., Phillipps, R., & Masoud-Ansari, S. (2018). A minimalist approach to archaeological data management design. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 26(2), 873-893. doi: 10.1007/s10816-018-9399-6

Schindel, D., & Cook, J. (2018). The next generation of natural history collections. PLOS Biology, 16(7), e2006125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006125

Smith, A., Lawrence, S., Muir, A., & Smith, J. (2019). Is it that important? A rapid assessment system for historical archaeology collections. Australasian Historical Archaeology, 37(2019), 18-25.

Smith, J. (2017). The city revealed: Reflections on 25 years of archaeology in Melbourne. Lessons from the past and future challenges. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 22(1), 67-77. doi: 10.1007/s10761-017-0415-4

Introduction

A culture is relatively unique compared to other cultures. A certain culture may differ from another culture in terms of its traditions, practices, beliefs, and other aspects, but there would also still be some similarities between them. There are various aspects of culture, of which anthropologists, and even laymen could use as points of comparison. Included in the list would be architecture, agricultural technology, especially the type of subsistence the community utilizes, the political structure and framework, etc.

One of the most visible and obvious points of comparison would be the arts, especially architecture. There are several aspects within this discipline that had been subjected to different studies from different disciplines such as arts, anthropology, psychology, engineering sciences, physics, and a lot more.

Aside from being good subjects for these sciences, architecture had also become subject for the mysticists and also conspiracy theorists. There are a lot of architectural structures that can become examples of these, many of them are even famous the world over. Some of these architectural structures that some people consider as mystical and mysterious are the pyramids of Egypt, the Sphinx, The Aztec pyramids, The Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Great Wall of China, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Rice Terraces of the Philippines, the Stonehenge, and many other more. The list could go on and on because almost each of the architectural structures in the world has its own mysterious and mystical story to tell.

Main text

If someone is given the chance to do the listing of these structures, there would be a greater possibility that most of the structures included will be the ones that were mentioned earlier. However, not so many people know that aside from the ones that most people know, there are also those structures which have raised the curiosity of scientists, enthusiasts and laymen alike.

Perhaps Stonehenge would be the most popular of the structures that can be considered as to have mysterious origins, mysterious uses and mysterious construction methods. However, there are also other structures that can equal, or even surpass the mysticism and the mysteries that Stonehenge had on most people. Two of these structures would be the Nan Madol of the Caroline Islands of the Pacific and the Lapaha of Tonga.

Most of the world does not know or even heard the names of the places, even though these structures are considered by the researchers and the few fortunate ones who have seen and went to these places to be the most beautiful place they have ever been.

These structures have some similarities with each other, but aside from these, there are also differences between them. Also, these structures share some similarities with the other ones in the list of the architectural wonders of the world.

The Nan Madol is basically found in the Caroline Islands, in the group of Islands called Micronesia. The structure can be found on the East coast of Pohnpei. Some archaeologists argue that they have found some archaeological evidence that Nan Madol is the greatest political, as well as social and religious center even until AD 1500 (Ayres, n. d.).

The whole city of Nan Madol was built on top of an ancient coral reef. The reef roughly measuring a bit more than 11 square miles, including a variety of man-made islets as well as vast and intricate intersections of man-made canals. The whole city is a very beautiful sight to see, not only to the ordinary and adventuresome tourist, but also to the most academically-oriented scientist. The whole city poses different mysteries that are yet answered by modern science, even until now.

Adding to the mystery of this city is the presence of interconnected submerged tunnels which connect one relatively large island to another. This city was first rediscovered by European sailors during the early 1800s. Because of that rediscovery, the beliefs about the existence of the lost continent of Mu became stronger with the help of this immense and great megalithic stone city. There are those that claim that this is already the evidence of the existence of the said continent, while others say that the city is not part of the continent Mu, however, it may or may not contain some very important evidence about its existence, however, still, there are still others that argue that the city does not contain any pieces of evidence about any lost continent, because the lost continent is not true in the first place, and second, that the Nan Madol is not a part of any kind of larger landmass because it is the city itself.

The mere existence of this magnificent megalithic stone-made city poses some questions that are very hard to answer in the minds of scientists and researchers.

This is because, using radiocarbon emission testing and dating, as well as archaeological excavations, it was already established and concluded that the city of Nan Madol had already been around at about 200 BC. This finding would make it hard for most conventional scientists to believe that brute force, or even with the help of very simple machines, the people would still not be able to perform the tasks. This problem was somehow “solved” by the inhabitants’ folklore, which says that the stones in the walls were flown into the air by a certain type of magic, and the same magic had placed each and every basalt log in its proper place.

Most people think that sites that only see very few tourists are lost sites, but in reality, these parts of the earth are not really lost, but only hidden from the lenses of cameras. Just like other “lost” sites, Nan Madol is considered to be one, because it sees only a handful of tourists at any given time (Hunley, 2007). However, the term lost is really a misnomer, because the site was never really lost, nor was there found a time when the islands were uninhabited by the natives.

According to the oral, as well as the archaeological evidence, the structure was the seat of political power of the Sau Deleur dynasty during the late prehistoric times. This dynasty was the one that archaeologists consider to be the one responsible for uniting the estimated population of 25,000 people during those times. That was the Nan Madol in Prehistoric times, but today, the structure is a part of an archaeological district that measures 18 sq. km, which also includes a kind of stone structure that was built on a coral reef flat. Included in this archaeological area are some artificial islets and the Pohnpei main island coastline which is just adjacent the Nan Madol structure.

According to one archaeologist who had studied the Nan Madol in our contemporary times (Beardsley, 1998), the city is almost synonymous to the dynasty that was ruling it during the prehistoric times, the Sau Deleur Dynasty. Living in the city itself poses several problems, because there are no freshwater sources, as well as there are no foods in there because they cannot grow food. However, the rulers did not worry about this, because the people send them their food and water.

In the core of the site, a structure with stone walls which approximately measure 1.5 km long and 0.5 km wide can be found. Within this structure, more or less 100 artificial islets made up of coral fill platforms and stones can be found. These islets are all bordered by tidal canals. According to Ayres (1990), it would be estimated that building materials weighing 500,000 to 750,000 metric tons were transported to the site from different places, from various distances.

Also, according to Ayres’ research (1990, 1992), the Nan Madol, along with 200 other Pohnpeian sites are to be put in an island-wide context, that is that the individual structures should not be taken as individuals, but as structures that were built because of their interconnectedness with the other structures.

Also, he found out that the Sau Deleur may have occupied the area for about 2000 years or so, and that the span of major construction activity would have possibly reached a thousand years or so.

During the archaeological activities done on the site, several thousand portable artifacts were found (Ayres, 1990). Along with these artifact finds, food remains were also found. These food remains were used to provide information on forming the basis for dietary and activity patterns. Also, the archaeologists also found a collection of ceramics which are evidence for major changes in stylistic changes and production sources that are argued to be non-local, which suggest that the people already have formed economic relationships with the outside world.

Unlike the pottery finds from other archaeological sites, the pottery finds from the archaeological site of Nan Madol are very mysterious. This is because according to the people inhabiting the islands themselves, they have not known how to create pottery until their late history.

This only raises the hypothesis that the people who have built the Nan Madol are not the same people who are currently inhabiting the place because the technology that is already present in the past cannot be found in the group of people who are supposedly their descendants.

Even with this vast amount of information about the Nan Madol, questions still arise regarding the purpose of the structure. Also, questions about the position of the structure to the greater and broader Pohnpeian socio-politico-economic system are still subject to debate.

Because of this, several conspiracy theorists, amateur theorists and other kinds of theorists formed hypotheses that they think would answer those questions.

There are actually some theorists who argue that the Nan Madol is actually a man-made weather manipulation structure, which was originally designed to be a man-made weather manipulation structure. They think that the people who made the structure already had the technology and knowledge to manipulate the weather (Nan Madol…, 2007).

These theorists also believe that the people who have erected these walls also had the technology to magnetize the building blocks that they had used, the massive basalt rocks which weigh from around 5 metric tons to about 25 metric tons.

These basalt rocks were shaped like logs, and they were stacked up to form walls, just like the way logs are stacked up in the traditional log house. The walls are estimated to be 50 feet in height, and it measures more or less 17 feet in its thickness. How the people were able to bring the basalt logs to the site would already be a very big question, but how were they able to lift these logs to their height would be very puzzling (Ancient Cities, n. d.).

The construction of the Nan Madol is rather very simple, yet very effective in keeping the walls together even up to our times. The long and very durable basalt logs were placed from one end to another, and with coral rubble being put between each log to serve as its mortar. The walls are slightly slanted which creates an inward pressure on the Nan Madol walls, which makes the walls still stand.

Adding to the mentioned mysteries of the Nan Madol, it would also be important to look at the canals that are present in the interior of the structure. Just like the canals that can be found in Venice, these canals may have served as a medium for transportation. At first, the canals would seem very ordinary, but with a closer and more critical look, anyone would notice that the canals were systematically and precisely carved out of the site. This may suggest that the people of that time already had the technology to do so, also, they would have been very good architects, as well as builders to do so.

They believe that these people use this kind of technology to alter the natural course of nature by using magnetism. Although this may sound as if the people knew how to go against Nature, the theorists say that the opposite may be the truth. They believe that the Sau Deleur, or any other people that had inhabited the place had the knowledge of how to work with the courses of Nature, not against it.

The theorists put up some very convincing and very scientific proofs that will support their theories. Their proofs include their findings that claim that the basalt rocks that make up the structure are magnetized, and arranged in a way that they would be able to “break apart” a typhoon even before it forms.

Aside from this, the contextual location becomes proof to the said theorists.

The Nan Madol is basically found in the area which is halfway between the volcanic islands of Hawaii and the archipelago of the Republic of the Philippines. This puts the Nan Madol in the area where most of the Pacific typhoons form. This is because this is the area where the cool air from the northern regions of the Pacific Ocean meets the warm waters of the Caroline Islands, making the area very ideal for storms and typhoons to form.

Incidentally, the Nan Madol can be found in the area where almost all the typhoons originate. This fact made the theories a bit stronger, because if the structure really has the capacity to manipulate the formation of a storm as the theorists claim it can, and that this structure is found in the exact place where most storms originate to become fully grown storms, then it would really be tempting to conclude that the structure really is made to manipulate the weather.

Aside from the mystery of the Nan Madol that the theorists have tried to explain, there some other questions still arise about the building of the said structure (Hunley, 2007). The most prominent and obvious question would be how were the people of those times able to transport those massive pieces of basaltic rocks to the site.

Another question would be how were those people able to lift the rocks to the places they are now. These things would seem very trivial for our time because we now have the technology to loft very objects off the ground by using very strong machinery that are able to lift almost anything of any mass, however, to the people of that time, it would pose very big problems. This is because even with the aid of their simple machines, it would still seem be very impossible for them to quarry, transport and lift rocks as massive as the ones they have put up on the site.

Because of that, it would also be very tempting to conclude that the people who had made the structure really have the knowledge of how to control or manipulate nature by preventing the formation of a storm. But still, all these are just theories that still need to be tested and proven. All these theories are valid as of the meantime.

Aside from the architecture that the people of Nan Madol had, the whole investigation and study about the Nan Madol also had to include the study of the people who had inhabited the place. According to an anthropologist who went into the place in the early part of the year 1836, the people of the place had a very vast collection of legends as well as beliefs that are associated to the structure of Nan Madol, however, the telling of these legends and beliefs to non-locals is taboo for them. According to the anthropologist, the practice was somewhat similar to the Hawaiian Kahuna practice of keeping “the secret” (Childress, 1998).

Other than the Nan Madol, there are yet still other places on Earth that share the mystery that the Nan Madol has. One of them is the village of Lapaha in Tonga. The village is basically found in the city of Mu’a, which is considered to be the capital of ancient Tonga (Wikipedia, 2007).

When someone goes to Lapaha, it would be most probable that he or she will not notice anything very extraordinary about the place, however, if that person goes to the community cemetery, he or she would find that place one of the most unique structures he could find in the community. That person would definitely find the cemetery of the village of Lapaha as something that is somehow similar to the Nan Madol, but unique in its way.

This is because, just like the Nan Madol, beside the cemetery is a structure that is made up of relatively large boulders which resemble a kind of pyramid of some sort.

However, unlike the Nan Madol whose origin and purpose is still a subject for a very long and rigorous debate, the Lapaha, as mysterious as it may look at seems to be, is not an object of mystery anymore, because of the existence of valid historical data that the historians and anthropologists got from the inhabitants.

The main difference between the two structures lies in the environment they are located in, and the people that had built them. The first one is built in a coastal area, which gives the inhabitants the condition of having to live with the conditions that are present in this kind of area. Also, the materials used would definitely vary, not only because of the possible purposes these structures would serve the people, but also because of the present natural and artificial raw materials that they would be using for these structures.

Aside from these, it would be very good to look at the way these structures were put into the context by their builders. The first one, the Nan Madol may be built because prior the building proper, the people of that particular community had already suffered a lot from the storms that had passed through their area, so their society devised a way of how to prevent this, without sacrificing their selves by destroying their environment.

Another observation about the two is that the structures were both built for some kind of socio-politico economic reason. Whether it be for manipulating the weather, or to serve as a place where the people could perform religious rites, or some kind of point where traders could do their trading, or some kind of place where the kings, or any kind of royalty could flaunt their riches and power, the sites still become a place where people perform their socio-politico economic duties, as well as their rights. This may seem very obvious or trivial at first, but come to think of it, every place in this world, excluding those ones where people have not set foot on yet of course, is a place where these rights and duties are performed.

The two structures that were mentioned, and at one point compared are just two examples of the artifacts that two different cultures leave as they progress through time. Different or similar as they may seem, they are still both creations of the human mind, therefore, they are similar in their own ways, and at the same time, different. One may serve this purpose, the other, another purpose.

Building on the said kind of premise, it would be vague for people to compare one structure with another, because they would be comparing different yet similar things. It would be like comparing the French fries people buy at a McDonald’s in the US, with the French Fries that people in South East Asia buy from their local McDonald’s branch. Would it be logical or even important to compare the two French fries? There would definitely be some minor differences between them, but their similarities would still stand, because it is basically the reason why people buy food from them. Also, would it be logical to do that even when you know that the maker and producer of both French fries belong to the same mother company? It certainly would not be, because the comparison would only be affected by the biases that the person comparing has.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the two structures, the Nan Madol of the Caroline Islands and the Lapaha of Tonga should be considered to be included in the list of the wonders of the world, not only because they amaze, stupefy and make the people who see them say “Wow!,” but also because they are wonderful in their own sense, and that they are manifestations of how intelligent Man can be, being able to amaze even the members of their own species.

Bibliography:

Ancient Cities, n. d. Web.

Ayres, W. n. d., Nan Madol, Madolenihmw, Pohnpei. Web.

Ayres, William S. Mystery Islets of Micronesia. Archaeology 1990, pp. 58-63.

Ayres, William S. Nan Madol, Pohnpei. SAA Bulletin. Vol. 10. 1992. Society for American Archaeology.

Ayres, William S. Pohnpei’s Position in Eastern Micronesian Prehistory, Micronesica, Supplement 2: Proceedings, Indo Pacific Prehistory Association, Guam, 1990, pp. 187-212.

Beardsley, F., PhD, 1998. Nan Madol. Web.

Childress, D. H., 1998, Ancient Micronesia & the Lost City of Nan Madol. Adventures Unlimited Press, pp. 18 – 23.

Hanley, C., 1986, “Oregon Anthropologist Unravels Story of Lost City of Pacific,” The Oregonian. Cr. D.A. Dispenza.

NAN MADOL – Ancient Weather Manipulation Technology??, 2007. Web.

Wikipedia.org. 2007, Mu’a (Tongatapu). Web.

Introduction

Jamestown, situated along the coastal lands of Virginia, is a well-known historic site for accommodating the first English settlers of the land. However, the region is invaluable to the US because archaeological excursions have uncovered unique features and artifacts depicting the first settlers’ way of life. The Jamestown rediscovery project began in 1994, intending to uncover the original site of the James Fort, presumed to have been lost due to the river’s erosion. Nevertheless, since its initiation, archaeologists have unearthed more than three million artifacts and excavated more than 80% of the triangular fort. The most recent discoveries at the site suggest that the settlers suffered significant hardships, including starvation, high rates of disease, and death during the 1600s but were dedicated to forging new endeavors away from England.

A Brief History and Background of Jamestown

Englishmen from England cited Jamestown in North America as a viable area to establish a colony in 1607. Following their selection, 104 men and 13 boys created a settlement in the region, named after King James I. Jamestown was a preferable site to set base because of its proximity to the river (Reid 23). A significant portion of Jamestown’s boundaries is surrounded by water, thus making it easier to defend from the Spanish. Additionally, no natives resided in the area, and the water was deep enough to facilitate docking. Thus, the site’s features made it preferable due to its resources and strategic position (Reid 26). In 1608, more colonists moved in, making Jamestown the first permanent settlement for Europeans in North America, allowing its existence for about 100 years.

Archaeological Excavations and Artefacts Retrieved at Jamestown

Dr. William Kelso pioneered the ongoing Jamestown exhumation in 1994 after obtaining permission from the Preservation of Virginia. The Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, as it was formerly known, purchased 22.5 acres of land to guard America’s birthplace (Kelly 26). However, eyewitness accounts from as early as 1837 suggested that a fort built by the captain and first settlers was submerged in the river, thus sparking interest to unearth what lay beneath. Over the past 25 years, archaeologists have retrieved more than three million spectacular items that fit into broad categories, including colorful beads used for trade, armor, sword hilts, and pots. Investigators also discovered alembic fragments, bear claws, bricks with hoof prints, coins, clay balls, arrow mounts, telescope lenses, tenterhooks, coins, and footwear (Herrmann 175). Nevertheless, some items found on the site are strange and associated with the mixed cultures that existed in the region during the period.

Apart from items used for trade, archaeologists at Jamestown have unearthed artifacts that can be linked with other parts of the globe, including Asia, Europe, the North Atlantic and Caribbean Islands, and the rest of North America. For example, they found a commemorative medallion awarded to members serving in the English colony, the Elizabethan trial plate, a lion counterweight, serpent glass, tokens, glass figurines, scissors snuffer, rambler bells, and wine cups (Herrmann 178). In addition, the excavators are digging up items linked to the natives in the region, such as a trumpet mouthpiece, West Indian top shells, stone tablets, foodways, household items, and health and hygiene objects (Kelly 26). Most recently, archaeologists exhumed and successfully identified the bodies of four people buried in the first church built in the fort (Zimmerman 25). Therefore, these findings are reliable in conceptualizing how individuals lived during these days and the visitors’ interactions and relations with others and their environment.

Archaeological Methods and Techniques used at the Jamestown Site

The first step toward uncovering what lay beneath Jamestown involved examining notes and artifacts initially retrieved by the National Park Service (NPS) and objects obtained from the Preservation of Virginia collections. The team that came forward to carry out these initiatives comprised experienced doctors, namely Ivor Noël Hume, Nicholas Luccketti, Bly Straube, and Dr. Kelso (Herrmann 174). The objects the archaeologists studied included weapons and pottery fragments dating back to the town’s establishment. The examined soil had traces of wooden fences, proving that building structures existed in the area, thus encouraging the extensive exploration of the region (Kelly 26). As a result, they began their excavations in 1994 by digging up the area between the fort’s tower and its church. Subsequently, more discoveries led to the adoption of cutting-edge solutions.

The team led by Dr. Kelso focused on areas with rich archaeological features, including ditches, pits, graves, post holes, and wells. After mapping out these areas, the archaeologists adopted simple methods such as shovel testing, which allowed them to screen the soil and identify more artifacts (Veronesi 3). Subsequently, the team used chemical analyses, carbon dating of skeletal remains, and examining historical documents to match their findings with retrieved evidence. However, advanced technologies have allowed it to adopt more sophisticated excavation methods and assessments to limit the destruction of artifacts and retrieved objects (Veronesi 8). For example, archaeologists use radar technologies to identify objects in the ground and bottomless pits. Moreover, items embedded in walls and rocks are identified using electrical impulses and carefully curved out using tools that do not interfere with their originality. Modern techniques are more effective because they maximize efficiency and ensure authenticity. Nevertheless, archaeologists prefer using simple tools to dig out artifacts in soil and sediments to minimize the damage and obtain objects that are close to the original as possible.

Over the past years, the Jamestown Rediscovery project has embarked on partial building and reconstruction to further reveal its layout’s aesthetics and elaborate how individuals in the region organized their defenses (Herrmann 177). Reconstruction involves adopting various solutions to re-enforce structures and reinstall the archaeological architectures using historical descriptions of the place and evidence collected from years of excavations. Reconstructing these elements allows visitors and researchers to understand the setting better and experience the site’s layout as it was in the 17^th century (Kelly 36). In addition, it informs archaeologists of the areas where they should focus on and the items they are likely to find. Although no plans exist to rebuild the fort, the available structures enrich Jamestown’s landscape and provide a relatable experience for tourists and visitors.

What the Artefacts Reveal about the Life of People in Jamestown

The goals of the Jamestown Rediscovery project are to uncover the marvelous constituents of its fortified port and share all its discoveries with researchers, virtual and actual visitors. As a result, archaeologists bring together various data and information obtained from collected artifacts and records. Thus, they can reconstruct individuals’ lifestyles, values, social practices, economic activities, and levels of advancement (Veronesi 5). Evidence from artifacts collected at Jamestown suggests that the first settlers were well prepared to occupy the land and ready to associate with the natives. Englishmen carried along everything they required for sustainable living, including full body armor, farming tools, valuable items for trade, weapons, and equipment used in masonry, barber shops, carpentry, and sewing (Reid 25). These products allowed them to obtain corn in exchange for metal tools, beads, and other valuable objects, thus assisting them in formulating good relationships with natives. Therefore, they settled in Jamestown to develop and make it profitable.

Additionally, the artifacts allow individuals to understand the social relationships between the natives and the settlers. According to historical records and the diversity of materials found at the port, it is evident that the Englishmen engaged in numerous trading activities with the natives. Remarkably, John Smith helped establish good relations with the Powhatan by marrying their princess (Zimmerman 32). As a result, booming trade enabled the settlers to thieve in the region and ensure their survival by exchanging food and other items with the natives. Additionally, the settlers were engaged in other economies, such as plowing the land, since they kept tools for subsistence farming (Jones 668). Moreover, items retrieved from the church at the fort suggest that the early settlers were Christians associated with the Pentecostal religious groups but had several Catholic relics stored in their cabinets (Reid 29). Therefore, this evidence reveals that some of the settlers may have been Catholics expelled or secretly fled from England since it was illegal to be Catholic in protestant England. Thus, the information provides a more vivid account of what led to these individuals’ settlement and their way of life.

Nevertheless, the settlers were not on good terms with some natives as they were not always friendly. Although denizens mostly welcomed their settlement in the area, the settlers faced substantial security risks. Jones suggests that settlers buried many of their dead in unmarked graves so that the natives would not realize their dwindling numbers (Jones 665). Thus, their safety was a crucial issue that encouraged them to keep weapons and fences around the fort to protect their homes. Additionally, the archaeological data from the Jamestown site indicates a long period of starvation, and they quickly lost their lives due to hunger and disease. Individuals’ accounts described a period when there was so little to eat that the settlers started eating leather shoes and pests (Zimmerman 22). Kelso and his team gained international attention after discovering the remains of a butchered teenage girl. These remains were evidence that settlers cannibalized those dead due to their lack of options. The girl, later named ‘Jane’ by the archaeologists, shed light on a dark period of American history characteristic of its early chapters.

The archaeological remnants recovered from Jamestown revealed astonishing facts about the early settlers and the techniques through which they traveled from England to North America. For example, excavations of remains show that all individuals who arrived first were men. Women joined the group in 1907 when they came with additional supplies and medicine to alleviate the troubles of the individuals who did not succumb to starvation and disease (Kelly 39). Kelso and his team have uncovered evidence that points to several links between the place and England. For example, there are remains of class lines brought from England and modern-like houses built for Jamestown’s governor and his councilors. Additionally, the remains reveal the presence of early African-Americans who worked for the settlers as enslaved people. English pirates were responsible for the first African-American captives sailed from Angola (Reid 31). In addition, the region is known to have hosted royalties and influential individuals from England such as Captain Gabriel Archer, who was the first true knight ever to be buried in the US. Therefore, the excavations show that these individuals lived an affluent lifestyle and were organized.

Conclusion

Jamestown is a historical site increasingly attracting the attention of millions of tourists, archaeologists, and scientists intrigued by the first settlers’ cultures. The Jamestown Rediscovery project started in the area in 1994, allowing archaeologists led by Dr. Kelso to discover more than three million artifacts comprised of valuable items, cookware, weapons, body armor, religious relics, and valuable metals. Since sediments cover a vast portion of the port due to erosion, the main techniques adopted include shoveling, analyzing previously collected artifacts, carbon dating, chemical analyses, and examining historical documents. Moreover, the team is reconstructing the place to replenish its aesthetic nature. Nevertheless, these discoveries have revealed the complex features of early settlers’ lives, such as their economic practices, the introduction of slavery to the US, subsistence activities, trade, religion, and social relations. Moreover, they inform individuals of the factors that led to the Englishmen’s suffering when they first arrived in the US. Thus, this information is critical since it creates awareness of the roots of the US and can help to follow up on the developments that have made the nation what it is today.

Works Cited

Jones, Scott R. “Jamestown, Virginia, 1607: First Southern Surgeons and the First Healthcare Crisis.” Journal of the American College of Surgeons 232.4 (2021): 665-669.

Kelly, Joseph. Marooned: Jamestown, Shipwreck, and a New History of America’s Origin. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2018.

Reid, L. Chardé. “It’s Not About Us”: Exploring White-Public Heritage Space, Community, and Commemoration on Jamestown Island, Virginia.” International journal of historical archaeology 26.1 (2022): 22-52.

Herrmann, Rachel B. “Jamestown: The Truth Revealed.” (2018): 174-178.

Veronesi, Umberto. Archaeology and the alchemical laboratory: Exploring early modern chymical practices at colonial Jamestown (Virginia) and the Old Ashmolean Museum (Oxford). Diss. UCL (University College London), 2021. Web.

Zimmerman, Sandy. “Winter is Coming: The Starving Time at Jamestown Fort in 1609.”Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East 3.1 (2021): 20-33. Web.

Ground-Truthing History at Jamestown.

The article is devoted to the author’s dialogue with the scientist Kelso about the interesting finds found at the altar of the ancient church. But his legacy is already over. As they talked, they were surrounded by evidence of the first permanent British colony in America, up to the partial reconstruction of the remains of the first church building built on the site where Pocahontas and John Rolfe exchanged marriage vows in 1614. Since Kelso began excavations, more than two million artifacts have accumulated. Most of them are closed to the public, but over 4,000 of them can be seen at the Archeryum Museum, just a few steps from where we stood. Speak.

Cotter, John L., and Edward B. Jelks. “Historic Site Archaeology at Jamestown.” American Antiquity, vol. 22, no. 4, 1957, pp. 387–389., doi:10.2307/276138.

Jamestown, the first permanent British settlement in the New World, provides an interesting example of the use of archaeological methods to infuse abstract and theoretical bones with actual flesh. land holdings and buildings. Clues to settlers and daily habits demonstrated by tools and implements.

A Jamestown Skeleton is Unearthed, but Only Time—and Science—Will Reveal His True Identity.

Archaeologists at Jamestown Rediscovery have used new technology to uncover the bones of one of the first British settlers. Rediscovery scientists have found new evidence in the ruins of a church in Jamestown, Virginia, including a skeletal skull and teeth that may belong to Sir George Yeardley. Colonial Governor Yeardley, who presided over the first convention of delegates in the Western Hemisphere, was also one of America’s first slave owners. The Congress, which met in 1619, was an important step in the beginning of a new era of colonial rule, but it took decades for modern democracy to be established in the region. However, many scholars praise Yeardley for his role in advocating citizen participation in their own government.

Yardley died at Jamestown in 1627 at the age of 39, and his death may have been marked by a grand memorial service. Scientists have been excavating Jamestown since 1994. Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement in North America, where three ships docked for the first time in April 1607. The Jamestown Rediscovery Project, pioneered by archaeologist Bill Kelso, has already unearthed two million artifacts. This is an increasingly complex portrait of this cornerstone of American history, but this early American discovery may be its most groundbreaking.

Archaeologists have found the remains of one of Jamestown’s early settlers. Now they have to prove he is who they think he is.

A team of archaeologists from Jamestown Rediscovery, with the help of experts from the Smithsonian Institution, are gradually discovering skeletons that were buried in a prominent place in one of the local churches. Excavations are ongoing in the stuffy interior of a much later church on the same site. Archaeologists work in special isolation tents built around the tombs, dressed from head to toe in laboratory clothes. Working in shifts using dental tools, small trowels and brushes, the last few inches of soil on the skeleton were removed on Saturday and mostly covered by Monday. Located 150 miles from the James River, this ghostly site was the first British settlement in the US and contains underground graves of hundreds of early settlers.

King, Julia A. “Ruins of Jamestown.” Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, vol. 26 no. 1, 2019, p. 11-31. Project MUSE.

The ruins and relics of Jamestown, the original settlement (1607) and capital of the Virginia colony, were a key element in the redevelopment of Old Town as a historic landscape beginning in the early 19th century. Visitors headed to Jamestown to see, touch, and sometimes even steal the ruins, telling the story of Jamestown as the birthplace of the United States. This article explores this story, or founding myth, and the role that the landscape of Jamestown played in creating this story. Race is at the heart of Jamestown’s mythology, from the first encounters of settlers in the home territory to the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in 1619, and how these events are celebrated. Of the many ruins, relics, and artefacts associated with Jamestown, four in particular (the church tower, the 1608 fort, the gunpowder store, and the ruins of the State Capitol) either appear in the memorial report or are mentioned most consistently. These features are signs and symbols of the colonial project, the material reality of which confirms the veracity of the history of the founding of Jamestown.

The research work, that I would like to discuss, is aimed at exploring archeological sites, commonly found in the United Kingdom, which are usually known as Fulacht fiadh. The researcher presents a comprehensive study of these historical monuments; however, some statements, made by the author, can be disputed.

First, it is argued that in the overwhelming majority of cases, Fulacht fiadh can be found in Ireland, though archeological findings indicate that similar constructions exist not only in Ireland but also in other parts of the British Isles. Probably, it would be more prudent to widen the scope of research and take into consideration Fulacht fiadh, excavated in England, Wales, Scotland, and the Isle of Man.

Another controversial point of this research is the restrictions, made by the author. It is said, that there are many types of Fulacht fiadh sites, therefore, this study should focus only on “classical” types of this construction. However, it is not quite clear on which criterion classical types are singled out. Archeologists do not favor such division; because historical monuments, which are usually classified as Fulacht fiadh sites, are not always similar to each other and it is difficult to find any traditional pattern or certain deviations from this pattern. The description of a classical Fulacht fiadh presented in the paper is often disputed. The main reason for it is that there are very few obligatory elements, for instance, burnt mound, or fireplace. Such parts as potboiler or hearth are not always present. Thus, it is hardly possible to speak of the “classical” sites.

Additionally, analyzing different theories as to the functioning of Fulacht fiadh constructions, the author argues that they served many purposes. Naturally, the multi-functional approach seems to be the most convenient in this case. Supporters of this theory state that Fulacht fiadh were used for bathing, cooking, or even dying however, it should be borne in mind that such an approach was not quite typical of people living in the Bronze Age. In addition to that, archaeologists state that there is no evidence indicating that Fulacht fiadh were used for cooking because the remnants of animal bones or foodstuff are very rarely found. As it has already been mentioned that the researcher takes a multi-functional approach to this issue, but such interpretation disregards the fact, that multi-functionalism was alien to prehistoric people.

The author views Fulacht fiadh findings as various manifestations of the same phenomenon, but probably, these monuments are entirely different constructions. Naturally, such a statement may seem unorthodox to say the least. However, the findings of archeologists suggest, there is no distinct pattern; so maybe, Fulacht fiadh should be treated as the same construction.

Furthermore, according to this research, the troughs were filled with only water. At first, glance this statement can be easily taken for granted (especially considering the fact, that Fulacht fiadh are usually found close to water sources). Probably, it would be better to use the term “liquid” in this case, because even now, archeologists have not come up with any definite answer to this question. It is often debated whether prehistoric people filled the troughs with water or with some other liquid.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the attempts to interpret archeological findings within the context of multi-functionalism can often result in errors in misconceptions, because such an approach adapts historic facts to its theory, though it should be done vice versa.

Introduction

Today, people pay a great deal of attention to the past, as well as to the roles and location of ancient objects. There are many ways in which people can learn about the past, one of which is anthropological archaeology. Anthropological archaeology advances the understanding of human history, social mores, and economic structures, and it can also codify national and ethnic heritages. As a rule, archaeologists examine past human interactions at increasing levels of scale and complexity: household, communal, local, and regional. Moreover, four main categories—artifacts, ecofacts, features, and sites—form the archaeological record (Price and Feinman 2013, 18-19; Wenke and Olszewski 2006, 43). Analyses of recovered artifacts include both fieldwork and records made in laboratories and at home (Price and Feinman 2013, 11). Many disparate forms of information are available to people who conduct archeological activities. For example, the resources for ordinary laypeople may differ from those available to researchers and students, while professional archeologists enjoy great access to many advanced resources.

Nonetheless, almost all information available in these resources has been gained as the result of excavation—the technique of uncovering buried objects from the past (Price and Feinman 2013, 11). Raw materials are categorized as “objects” only if they carry an archeological value and provide insight into past human activity. Objects include tools and toolmaking remnants, personal objects, jewelry, art, adornments, items for household practices, and even literature. Archeologists must analyze and interpret the meaning and use of each discovered object—or raw material—by gleaning clues about their use, associated value, and perceived cultural significance. Furthermore, they must be cognizant of limitations, assumptions, and even contradictory or competing ideas about such aspects. This approach is necessary for archaeologists to use to gain a full understanding regarding the importance of excavations and how they advance the understanding of the past such as the development of language, religion, customs, personal and cultural identities, roles, and worldviews.

Importance of Interpreting Archaeological Evidence

To comprehend personal heritage, people have to interpret archaeology and use the evidence properly because archaeology is not the study of records only but rather a means of understanding past societies using the evidence available. As mentioned above, in archaeological fieldwork, the evidence is divided into four major categories: artifacts, ecofacts, features, and sites.

Artifacts comprise various portable objects including ceramics, fauna, and lithic objects altered by humans. As soon as they are found, artifacts have to be washed so that all dust and dirt can be removed for further analysis. It is also necessary to make a correct record of the discovery including the type of the material, it’s color and shape, possible measurements and manufacturing techniques, and possible functions and decorations (Price and Feinman 2013, 19).

Ecofacts pertain to the remains of plants, animals, and other unmodified materials formed as the result of human activities (Price and Feinman 2013, 18-19). With the help of such objects, it is possible to reconstruct the past environment and comprehend the activities that people either developed or tried to develop. Sometimes, archaeologists are lucky enough to find pollens and other botanic materials through which they can observe the changes and identify the unique features of climatic conditions in the past.

Among the types of evidence, there are also features or immovable structures located on the ground such as parts of houses or fences, burials and dwellings of different sizes, and human bones (Price and Feinman 2013, 22-23). Features are used to reflect on specific and usually repeated activities such as quarries or latrines (Wenke and Olszewski 2006, 44).

Finally, sites are the last category of excavated evidence and refer to complete sets of all the above-mentioned archaeological objects, the analysis of which defines the nature of a place and the quality of life there. One such example is the ancient city of Babylon with several baked brick buildings and various fragments.

The interpretation of raw materials, past objects, and past activities will always remain the essential and fundamental method of developing a collective and adaptable understanding of past human societies. The analysis of sites and settlements is a crucial archaeological step that helps researchers identify special activities that ancient people were involved in, comprehend the possible reasons for divisions between male and female spaces, and even clarify family structures. To form a full understanding, many different people have to participate in the examination and interpretation of raw materials excavated from the past. For example, specialists in ceramics focus on studying ancient pottery. It was a ceramics analysis of the Ubaid period in Mesopotamia that proved the growth of population and the development of craftwork there. People stopped using suitable sources but instead relied on clay. The presence or absence of these objects indicates that social differentiation existed.

Archaeological evidence has to be processed and sorted carefully to preserve context, avoid false interpretations, and prevent any damage or change to the data that could be discovered using techniques and analytical techniques in the future. Therefore, guesses and suggestions made based on evidence obtained during the excavation process should not be taken as definite facts or conclusions. Lithic analysis is another form of analysis in archaeology that uses scientific techniques to explain the location and the nature of stone tools and artifacts. With this analysis, researchers focus on the morphology of artifacts and the clarification of their attributes. This analysis describes the main characteristics of the subjects, their functions, and the recognition of their development in terms of usage or reduction. Finally, there is faunal analysis, also called as archaeozoology, which is used to investigate the remains of animals, their functions in archaeological sites, and their roles in hunting and eating practices. For example, the excavation of the bones of a young deer can prove that certain people hunted deer in the fall because deer are usually born in the spring (Price and Feinman 2013, 21). The ability to connect the bones with the season of hunting is a significant achievement of archaeological analysis.

Raw Materials and Objects in Archaeology

Regardless of the category of the archaeological record, raw materials remain the main object for the analysis of the past. Raw materials comprise the largest part of what can be recovered in conjunction with the application of archeological records. It is necessary to search for and determine the meaning of raw materials. Therefore, any method or technique can be used as long as it promotes a successful explanation of the object and its place and role in ancient society. The archaeological analysis uncovers different types of societies as well as various methods of organization and identification of primary human activities. These methods include the importance of taxation, the development of bureaucracy and codified law, stratification, accumulation, and the creation of different groups in regards to their statuses (e.g. marriage), incomes (e.g. ranks), and abilities (e.g. leadership). Excavations are usually characterized by one apparent trend in the organization of an ancient human society.

Raw materials include a variety of items such as bones, stones, metals, hair, and skin. The determination of whether these materials are significant to a modern understanding of past people is the primary role of an archeologist because not all items are of anthropological significance. Fragments of insects, seeds, skin, or hair may provide information about the layers and local environment where people developed their skills and carried out different activities.

Also, there are many other common examples of small-scale objects that may be used in archaeological analysis, including stone tools and remains of their products along with pottery shards. For example, the presence of geometric clay objects suggests the development of skilled professionals in the Uruk period (Mieroop 2007, 24). Clay was used to creating new seals, which replaced stamps in that period. The quality and the design of the seal can reveal a lot about its owner and his or her societal status. Though clay seals were not used to disclose the number of transactions, their analysis proves the existence of different manufacturing techniques that tell more about the development of the community (Mieroop 2007, 29). Other objects are macro-scale stone monuments like those visible on the Giza plateau (Wengrow 2010, 14). Excavations of that period have revealed several technological achievements including unique and sophisticated writing, settlements, and everyday equipment.

Explanation of Past Practices

An archaeologist usually sets many goals. Still, his or her main task is to use old information and evidence to develop new ideas and ways of looking at a problem or a situation. Indeed, many archaeological excavations are conducted to find a solution to a certain intellectual problem or concern (Wenke and Olszewski 2006, 51). For example, at one point, there was a concern about the origins of maize agriculture in Mexico, which led to the necessity to clarify this problematic situation by analyzing available writings and artifacts that could be used to prove or disprove different approaches (Cooper 2004, 80; Wenke and Olszewski 2006, 51). Another example is the concern about existing biases based on animal bones taken from archaeological sites.

In addition to the analysis of artifacts and features that help archaeologists solve problems and clarify concepts, there is also a type of work known as “settlement archaeology,” which refers to the study of remains in a household or communal living site and helps describe different economic, political, and community concerns and developments (Price and Feinman 2013, 23). For example, certain differences in the size of households may explain status differentiation and point to a separation between poor and wealthy residents. Archeological evidence provides insight into the lifestyles and beliefs of people within different hierarchies of the same culture, including the description of human behavior and the reasons chosen by ancient people to explain their decisions.

Archaeologists pay attention to such concepts as technology, economy, culture, and ideology. Evaluation of technological development may be observed through the use of different tools and the excavated fragments of stones, ceramics, and metal remains. New placements and types of raw materials prove human intentions to adapt to the local environment. The type of economy may be explained in terms of the materials and activities preferred by the residents to feed themselves and gain higher ranks in the system. Hunting, gathering, and agriculture can be explained using faunal and lithic analyses. While some tribes preferred to hunt and eat meat to survive, other tribes were characterized by evident elements of cannibalism. Still, other groups developed their ideologies around the role of animals and human sacrifice.

Origins of Writing and Its Role in Archaeology

In addition to the attention paid to excavations and archaeological analyses, the role of past writings cannot be ignored, as they form one of the main sources of information available to current people to comprehend past life (Cooper 2004, 80). The unique feature of such sources is the inability to check their credibility. Indeed, people could always use their imaginations and personal attitudes and add them to the descriptions given in their writing.

For example, The Epic of Gilgamesh reveals many aspects of early Mesopotamian culture, worldviews, the complexity of thought, and artistic style. Because the work is a mythical and not historical source of information, conclusions regarding Mesopotamia come from a combination of archeological evidence coupled with literary analysis. Purely functional historical records—such as grain storage and taxation records—require less interpretation; however, even they should not be assumed to be representative of the whole truth or even to be accurate out of context. For example, in the epic, much attention is paid to descriptions of ancient Mesopotamia and the lives of historical kings and rulers. An archaeological analysis of the walls and an investigation of the ruins on the chosen territory explain that the events described in the epic could be true: “See its wall like a strand of wool, view its parapet that none could copy” (George 2002, 10). Therefore, even though writings may not serve as the best option to prove the traditions and rules of the past life described in The Epic of Gilgamesh, they can still be used to support archaeological evidence and develop clearer interpretations of past events.

In archaeology, many perspectives can be used to investigate the past and many ways to use archaeological evidence to explain the past. Many people have been involved in the development of interpretative archaeology, which emphasizes the possibility of multiple interpretations of different archaeological units and underlines the importance of subjectivity. It is not enough for archaeologists to investigate the value of the excavated subjects; they must also use the approaches developed in terms of materialism, functionalism, and idealism. Materialist and idealist concepts help explain what people tried to use and what goals they wanted to achieve. These concepts were based on religion and community decisions made by the citizens.

For example, Engels’ argument regarding the origins of the family and private property could be examined through an economic and social lens, under which past societal evolution was considered to be the result of conditional stimuli (Engels 1972, 194). Excavations discovered how sparse the ancient population was. For example, the division of power and the necessity to separate territory into separate spheres that were under men’s and women’s control were observed through the existence of extensive hunting grounds and protective fences (Engels 1972, 195). A recognition of the traditions and lifestyles exhibited by past societies and communities regarding the world that surrounded them could be interpreted in a materialistic way by using the objects and artifacts discovered and in an idealistic way by considering the activities and principles developed based on the found objects.

Also, projects by Carneiro (1970) and Wengrow (2010) could help shed light on such concepts as materialism, idealism, and functionalism in terms of early civilizations. For example, Carneiro (1970) developed the theory of the origin of the state, a theory that explained the reasons that states arose in certain places and not in others. This theory helps researchers and students comprehend the concepts of functionalism in archaeology and discuss environmental factors as the main external variables that were taken from outside socio-cultural settings and caused the promotion of political revolutions (Carneiro 1970, 736). Finally, there are also specific characteristics of writing, representational art, and different objects of monumental architecture that could be used to represent different contexts, functions, and structures of the societies that established civilized life (Wengrow 2010, 16). Therefore, it is wrong to believe that archaeology is the study of excavated objects that cannot be interpreted in different ways.

Artifacts, features, and settings are found and analyzed by archaeologists from many different perspectives. Materialists define anthropological archaeology as a scientific discipline in which humans are regarded as part of nature and cannot be investigated unless technology, environment, and culture are properly reflected as well. Idealists believe that archaeology is a humanistic discipline that describes and underlines the uniqueness of humans in comparison to other subjects, plants, and animals in the world. Functionalists, on the other hand, view archaeology as a part of behaviorism and argue that it is possible to specify humans in terms of the roles they have to perform.

The ideas developed by Engels, Wengrow, and Carneiro prove the importance of each study of anthropological archaeology because this combination helps researchers comprehend the ideological and functional characteristics of archaeological objects and use them as the basis for developing a powerful materialistic perspective.

Conclusion

In general, there are many ways to understand the interactions of the representatives of early civilizations and investigate past life through raw materials, objects, and activities. Though archaeology deals with the past, it cannot examine the past directly but rather indirectly. Therefore, it has a significant impact on the present as well as on the development of a successful future. The advancement of anthropological understanding cannot occur if everyone remains content and does not challenge or question previous interpretations of raw materials but simply continues evaluating new sources obtained from the archaeological record. Rather, the discipline must strive to develop new perceptions and participate in the analysis of past social developments.

There are many yet undiscovered and already known archaeological objects and sites that could improve people’s understandings of the past by the application of original thought, new techniques, and ongoing excavation processes. People may not be aware of their actual use in the past, but they are always able to develop their understandings and investigations by relying on the ideas introduced by such great thinkers as Engels, Carneiro, Wengrow, and even George, whose main goal was the translation and interpretation of The Epic of Gilgamesh and life during the Uruk period. The past has left several different prints and stamps on history, and people are welcome to use their best skills to interpret the messages from the past to improve their future.

Reference List

Carneiro, Robert. 1970. “A Theory of the Origin of the State.” Science 160: 733-738.

Cooper, Jerrold S. 2004. “Babylonian Beginnings: The Origin of the Cuneiform Writing System in Comparative Perspective.” In The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process, edited by S. D. Houston, 71-99. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Engels, Frederick. 1972. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York, NY: International Publishers.

George, Andrew. 2002. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Mieroop, Marc. 2007. A History of the Ancient Near East, Ca. 3000-323 BC. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Price, T. Douglas, and Gary M. Feinman, ed. 2013. Images of the Past. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Wengrow, David. 2010. What Makes Civilization? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wenke, Robert J., and Deborah I. Olszewski, ed. 2006. Patterns in Prehistory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

A scholarly book by Ian Hodder

The first pages of the book provide a thorough explanation of the Archaeology Theory. Ian Hodder provides the opening salvo which deals on some theoretical debates on archaeology. He explains the increase in the study of archaeological theory or in theory teaching and research. There are two reasons for this. The internal reasons dealt on the development of archaeological theory which emphasizes the New Archaeology on a critical approach to method and theory.

One subject focuses on processual archaeology, which deals on theory rather than method and brings us to more theoretical positions in the historical and social sciences. There are shifts here: the New Archaeology has become more theoretical, and the theorizing has become very abstract and specialized, making it more difficult to understand. This is a big challenge for the students of Archaeology.

In the humanities and social sciences, there are various discussions and debates. Some scientists like Meskel argue that feminist writers seek to open debate to a theoretical pluralism. Archaeology is now being linked to other disciplines like philosophy. Cultural studies are also being linked to the New Archaeology. But archaeology’s interaction with branches of psychology like evolutionary psychology and cognitive science are also given emphasis.

Hodder explains Thomas’s archaeological work on landscapes which are largely influenced by geography, more specifically by cultural geographers and art history.

“Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a New Synthesis”

The chapter entitled “Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a New Synthesis,” written by Vincent M. LaMotta and Michael B. Schiffer, deals with behavioral archaeology, which refers to the study of the formation processes of the archaeological record and with the reconstruction of the cultural past through behavioral inferences. The authors argue that this is different from many other social sciences because behavioral archaeology is based on the study of interactions between people and material objects, which is collectively termed “behavior”, i.e., in the point of view of Archaeological study. The authors opine that behavioralists seek to develop appropriate method and theory for studying and explaining all forms of variation in human social life in terms of behavior.

For instance, there is a variation in the form and arrangement of artifacts, architecture, and cultural deposits in living systems and in the archaeological record: archaeological record is the product of human behavior and not of some mental states (LaMotta and Schiffer, 2001, p. 15).

A behavioralist can dig into every aspect of human life using scientific methods, and the research is framed in terms of people-object interactions. To behavioralists, the irreducible core of archaeology is simply “the study of material objects … in order to describe and explain human behavior (LaMotta, and Schiffer, 2001, p. 15).

Human behavior therefore is linked to material objects of the past, meaning you can get the explanation of what we are today, or how we do react with the environment and with one another (meaning behavior) from the records of the past. The authors argue that the explanation for this was directed toward the behavioral variation at many scales.

Behavioral archaeologists explained and formed a science of human behavior grounded in what the authors called nomothetic statements about people-object interactions under specified boundary conditions – ranging from highly specific to highly general.

Behavioral archaeology is an extension of processualist agenda, and the behavioral archaeologists questioned this processual theory; in a sense, they departed from the concept of New Archaeology in their treatment of the archaeological record.

It was argued that new archaeologists had adopted simplistic conceptions of inference and upon these built inadequate methods for constructing past behavior, conflating traces of formation processes with traces of the “cultural” process of interest. Behavioralists then formulated new models of inference and insisted on the need to investigate formation processes, seen as the major source of uncontrolled variables. The authors conclude that we are now in a position to synthesize a methodological and theoretical framework for achieving these goals.

Behavioralists are committed to building explanatory theory that operates anywhere along the continuum from general to specific.

Behavioral archaeologists define human behavior as the interaction of living individuals with the elements of the material world. Behavior therefore involves people and objects.

There is a barrier that divides the animate organism from the inanimate world of material objects. Explanations for actions of the human organism are in the form of variables such as “the environment” or states such as “ideology,” “values,” “attitudes,” or “intentions”.

On the other hand, at the core of behavioral methodology lies the life history concept. We can say that an artifact’s life history in the sequence of behaviors lead from the procurement of raw materials and manufacture of that object through various stages of use, reuse and/or recycling until it is not anymore of use or the so-called discard stage.

Past behaviors and behavioral systems can be explained and understood from life histories through so-called archaeological remains. A lot more subjects of LaMotta and Schiffer dealt on behavioral contexts. They explained the locus of a “process” reveals a specific problem. We can point to a comparison of behavioral interactions with certain characteristics, also known as variables relevant to research questions.

The chapter on “Evolutionary Archaeology,” by Robert D. Leonard, explains more deeply the complex discipline of Archeology. The author argues: “Divorce from the biological sciences has been uncontested and amicable.

Anthropology has been able to provide the grounds for the divorce by providing expert testimony on how humans are totally unlike the rest of creation. We are really different from each other and from the rest of the living organisms – that’s what Leonard would like to impart.

In providing itself with the justification of its own existence, anthropology has provided the rest of biology with defenses for continued belief in the fundamental difference between our own species and the rest of the animal kingdom.

In a rather rare instance of interdisciplinary cooperation, anthropology has been able to provide biology with all the reasons necessary to maintain an unquestioned and unquestioning acceptance of the incommensurability of one species with all others. One might expect a critical mind to note the self-serving nature of the argument and question it on those grounds if no other. (Leonard, 2001, p. 65).

One of the highlights of Leonard’s paper is on evolution and archaeology. Evolutionary archaeology (EA) had its origins in the late 19760s and 1980s when a small group of individuals sought to break down the barrier Rindos refers to between human evolution and the evolution of the rest of organic life by bringing Darwinian theory to archaeology. Of course, archaeology has long discussed evolution before that time, and used a few evolutionary terms, but they discussed it in ways that had nothing to do with the evolution spoken of by Darwin (1859). Evolutionary Archaeologists refer to these early evolutionary efforts as Cultural Evolution in order to minimize confusion and maintain this important distinction between Darwinian and non-Darwinian thought. Leslie White, one of the great Cultural Evolutionary thinkers in anthropology, noted that Darwinian theory was absent in Cultural Evolution in the following quote:

Cultural anthropologists had borrowed the concept of evolution from Darwin and had employed this concept to establish and enrich their science. Unfortunately, they do not explicitly recognize this. We have to point out that the theory of evolution was introduced into cultural anthropology independently of Darwin and indeed of biology in general. The New Archaeology had evolutionary aspirations, but it is clear that they were not founded upon Darwinian theory.

Leonard (2001) explains White’s theory that is now viewed in two ways:

First, if one sees the evolution of humanity as unique with respect to other forms of life. The Darwinian theory was irrelevant requiring a different theory now known as Cultural Evolution. Ultimately, it became what is called processual archaeology today. However, this one rejects the position that humans are unique, and largely immune to the effects of Darwinian processes. In other words, as it ignores the Darwinian theory, it lacks the perspective on archaeology. As we can see the Darwinian evolution has increased our knowledge of life on earth and the evolution of human behavior.

Our ordinary belief of archaeology is that it is a record of nothing but the evolution of human behavior, but several generations of archaeologists have turned their back on their incredible knowledge-generating machine of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Leonard states that this loss was not unlike the loss that would have come to the physical sciences had physicists turned their back on Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

Leonard (2001) explains more on the Darwinian theory. He offers an easy understanding of the Darwinian theory but he adds that many of the anthropologists and archaeologists have made it so difficult to understand and have confounded it with Cultural Evolutionism. These anthropologists and archaeologists have not really taken the time to learn the difference, making a mistake and the naturalistic fallacy. Others mistakenly believe that Darwinian theory reduces the complexity of human existence.

The Darwinian theory that states:

1. there is variation in organisms;
2. there is transmission of that variation, or inheritance; and
3. some variants do better in certain circumstances than other variants. This third component is the process of natural selection – the difference persistence of variation.

These three facts constitute the basics of Darwinian evolution. Leonard explains that we are today because certain characteristics that our ancestors possessed were favorable in specific environments, and as a consequence our ancestors had more offspring than others who lacked those characteristics. That is natural selection.

Biologist Ernst Mayr (Leonard, 2001, p. 68) defines the phynotype as: “The totality of characteristics of an individual.”

The phenotype is all aspects of us, behavioral and physical, and it is the phenotype upon which natural selection operates. We unfold as individuals as our genetic structures dictate, yet the final package – our phenotype – is shaped both by our genes and by our environment – both physical and social. Our particular phenotype concerns our physical appearance, and also the behavioral traits that are influenced even more directly by the environment, and so forth.

We all have unique phenotypes, as do all life forms, yet we may also share a wide variety of individual characteristics. The sources of variation for many of these heavily environmentally determined characteristics are history, chance, and human behavior played out on top of the genotypic instructions.

We learn behavior through a process that is called cultural transmission. We attain cultural transmission vertically from our parents, obliquely from the other elders, and horizontally from our peers. Some of our behavior is more than simply learned, but is invented, and sometimes invented over and over again, without transmission.

There is also the current work focused on the concept of memes (Leonard, p. 70). Memes are minimal units of information that are transmitted.

With respect to transmission in the past, memes were ultimately translated into technology, leaving us an empirical record of cultural transmission (Neiman 1995; Leonard, p. 70).

Therefore it is first and foremost archaeologists who “see” transmission the past.

Leonard enumerates the assumptions of the Darwinian theory:

1. Humans are life forms.
2. Natural selection operates on phenotypes, making evolution in part a phenotype phenomenon.
3. Behavior is part of the human phenotype, and it is transmitted partially through learning.
4. Technology is the product of human behavior, and consequently a component of the human phenotype.
5. The differential persistence of behavior will be reflected by the differential replication of technology through time.

The last subject we can discuss in this paper as Steven Mithen’s (2001) “Archaeological Theory and Theories of Cognitive Evolution.”

Archaeologists are continuously seeking ways to explore new aspects of the past to explain present aspects of human life. One of these aspects is cognitive archaeology, which began to emerge in the 1980s and sought new issues in archaeology. Evidence of the past points to understanding of the modern mind.

Mithen (2001, p. 98) explains cognitive evolution as a means to explore the role of archaeology in understanding both past and present minds. A key argument is that archaeologists need to make greater efforts to engage with the theories, data, and ideas within the cognitive sciences.

Scientists explored significant developments involving archaeologists, anthropologists, and cognitive scientists, while there are others who have sought to synthesize evidence and data from archaeology with that from various branches of psychology.

Cognitive scientists are now focused on archaeological evidence and ideas when seeking to understand the nature and evolution of the mind. Archaeologists now have the opportunity to play a substantial role in the interdisciplinary studies of cognitive evolution.

Mithen (2001, p. 99) argues that archaeologists must not only contribute data and ideas for the evaluation of theories generated within the cognitive sciences but must also play an equal role in setting the agenda for studying cognitive evolution.

Mithen cites Merlin Donald’s (1991) Origin of the Modern Mind, saying that archaeological evidence can be integrated with cognitive science.

Archaeological evidence can be of great use in the study of cognitive evolution. Mithen also cites Brian Butterworth (1999) and his book The Mathematical Brain. Again archaeological evidence points us as to why and how the brain is so effective at using brains.

Conclusion

There are new concepts that sprung from more studies of archaeology and this linking the past to the present in explaining and understanding human behavior. The evidence does not only revolve around living individuals but also objects and other things found in nature from the past; they explained human behavior and other various disciplines that are now interlinked with each other to understand the complexity of man.

References

LaMotta, V. M. and Schiffer, M. B. 2001. Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a New Synthesis. In I. Hodder, Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

Leonard, R. D. 2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In I. Hodder, Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mithen, S. 2001. Archaeological Theory and Theories of Cognitive Evolution. In I. Hodder, Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.