Archaeological Key Questions

What do we learn from Schliemann's work at Troy? What were the contributions of the different excavators at Troy? Why does the Iliad hold such appeal? Use the Terms: Heinrich Schliemann, Homer's Iliad, Frank Calvert Priams Treasure

So Schliemann was mainly credited for finding Troy, however, it was really Frank Calvert, and young self taught archeologist that found it. He was too poor to perform deeper excavations, but he knew schliemann had a larger budget, so he guided schliemann to the spot in which most people deemed where Troy is located. However, when schliemann excavated, he was so desired to find Troy that he let that guide is evidence, rather than letting the evidence guide you. This led him to deem lots of antiquities, such as Priam's Treasure as a artifacts form Troy when in reality they were not and much older. He teaches us that you have to expect the unexpected when you excavate and to let the evidence guide you, not the other way around.

What is a diachronic view? What are the benefits and drawbacks of survey as a method of archaeological research?

So a diachronic view is one of the main benefits of survey. It allows one to scan the ground and see how it was used, and how that usage changed over time. A good example of what survey can result in lies within (or outside of, i should say) the city of Kalamionas. Kalamionas is surrounded by mountains, so it was thought that trades had to travel by boat before they could travel to other cities on land. However, survey led us to believed that the valleys in between the mountains provided an adequate terrain for trades. As such, pots, and other trade items were found within the valleys. One of the main benefits of survey is how cheap and relatively easy it is. However, although excavation is tougher and more expensive, it does allow one to better relative date artifacts and to find larger and more hidden objects.

What defines the Archaic, and Classical styles in Greek sculpture? How do we do a visual analysis of an ancient artifact?

So archaic sculptures focus a lot of symmetry and a narrow, straight stance. Typically they have one foot forward indicating some sort of mid-stride stance, but their upper bodies have no sway to them. A good example of this is the Kouros and the Kore. Classical style is more of and advanced version of Archaic in that the symmetry and stride is still presence, however, the upper body and sometimes the legs are typically turned and or in a leaning stance. It really shows a different level of sophistication in sculpture. So, in terms of visual analysis. the first step is to develop a description. Take a look at the materials used,, if it is archaic, classical, or hellenistic, and even what the sculpture is. Then, do an analysis, what is the subject, what is the sculpture doing, what does the art emphasize? Finally, do an interpretation, what is its significance?

What are the differences between relative and absolute dating? Is one method more accurate than the other?

So relative dating is when you use the strata, the type, the style and the topology to develop the process of seriation, in which you can group different artifacts into subjects and then use that to date them. Absolute dating is when you use either tree rings, calendars, historical records, carbon dating, or thermoluminescence. There are positives and negatives to both, but it is important that you do not just rely on one method. For example, take a look at the Thera eruption. Scholars used relative dating and dated it to be 100 years younger than what absolute dating was. This caused a large debate over which date was correct. All in all, however the moral of the story is that you cannot just rely on one method of dating.

***What led to the shift from collecting antiquities to practicing archaeology? Do you find anything about Beard's description of Pompeii surprising? Why? How does it agree with or differ from what you have heard? Use the terms Pompeii, Herculaneum, plan, Giuseppe Fiorelli, and Pompeii Premise.

So what really led to the shift was the discovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Once these cities were discovered people were so fascinated by them that they started to not just treasure hunt, but look for clues as to what had happened and what people back then were like. People began to make architectural maps of Herculaneum and Pompeii, and taking notes of what they were finding. Giuseppe Fiorelli was a big contributor to this. At Pompeii, he started to push for more a systematic way of prating archaeology and excavating, encouraging people to start documenting and to publish what they had found. In terms of Beards description of Pompeii, what i found surprising was the idea of the Pompeii Premise. That is, many people today think Pompeii is famous because it was a city frozen in time, and, thus, and perfect representation of what life was like way back when. The truth, however, is that Pompeii wasantyhing but typical. It was a city in the state of rebuilding after a massive earthquake had destroyed much of it. And if that isn't enough to way the city from the norm, there was also a major shift on money going on where newer money was arising and sparking rumors of revolution throughout the city due to its large wage gap.

What is archaeology and how is it different from treasure-hunting? In what different ways have humans interpreted materials from the past? Use the terms artifact, ecofact, Tiryns, Later Corinthian column Crater, Antiquarian and amulet

To begin with, archeology is the study of human past through examination of artifacts and ecofacts. It is different from treasure hunting as archaeologists aim to gain an intellectual value from their excavations rather than a monetary value, That is, archaeologist excavate so they can gain a new understanding of human past. Looking at how humans interpreted materials in the past, there are a few examples. First off, looking at the Late Cortinon column-krater, we see that the use of a fossil head takes the place of a sea monster. As such, we see here that there was a genuine interest even back in the Corinthian's time about what fossils were and what they used to be. Looking at the greeks, they invented stories and myths about materials they had found, while Medieval societies saw materials as medicines and sometimes threatening-- they would baptize and cut off the noses of some sculptures--the renaissance societies saw materials and great works of art. The enlightenment period consisted of people seeing materials from the past as antiquarians, or sculptures that were just seen as props in life. As such, many aristocrats, either from the Grand Tour or as old collectors, would collect sculptures and keep them in their homes and decorations.

What do archaeologists do, and how do they do it? What are the strengths and drawbacks of using material evidence versus texts to understand past society? Are these sources incompatible? Use the terms, pantheon, archaeological plan, strata, and section plan.

Well, archaeologists find and excavate in an attempt to learn something about humans in the past. They find sites in a few ways, they can find them out in the open, like the pantheon, by chance, or survey, geoprospection, or historical documents. Once they find a site, they have a certain procedure that they must follow. First, they have to do preliminary work, they must learn everything and anything about the site they are going to excavate. When they begin to dig, there are two main methods that Archeologists use, they use the wheeler box grid, widely used by Europeans, this is when you make square boxes. Americans typically use the open site method, both are viable and have their advantages and disadvantages. Once they are digging, they have to begging to make archaeological plans in which they draw out the site and label anything and everything. To dig, they use anything form paint brushes, to shovel,s to pick axes, it really depends on the site. While you're digging, it is important to take a look at the srata and make a section plan, that is a vertical plan of the different strata of the site. The strengths to using material evidence instead of historical evidence is that material evidence holds more truth than just words written on page. It also allows for artifacts that were not written down to be discovered. The disadvantages is that it is expensive to excavate and, like Pompeii, you do not always find what you want.