[HN Gopher] Archaeologists rebury 'first-of-its-kind' Roman villa
___________________________________________________________________
Archaeologists rebury 'first-of-its-kind' Roman villa
Author : pepys
Score : 120 points
Date : 2022-08-09 18:58 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| wswope wrote:
| Gonna shill Time Team for anyone interested in seeing what these
| villa digs look like. It's a British archaeology series with a
| reality TV twist: they bring a big team of professional
| archaeologists and do as much digging/surveying as they can in
| three days per site. Twenty one seasons of it, with the vast
| majority officially available on YouTube - and they're in the
| process of a reboot, which has been remarkably successful thus
| far.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vYCRaztndtk
| louky wrote:
| Yep, love Time Team! The original series is what I use to go to
| sleep every night.
|
| Also a drinking game - drink every time Phil says "flint,
| evidence of burning, postholes, or 'stone the crows'". Or yells
| at Tony for getting in a trench without permission.
| mcguire wrote:
| How do you go to sleep watching Phil Harding's legs in those
| too-short cut-offs?
|
| :-)
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| I'm not an archeologist or historian, but it has been my
| impression that high-status roman villas typically had rooms
| linked by courtyards. In that regard, this villa seems to be
| particularly interesting, given that it appears to be rooms with
| a central tower. In that regard, I'd be curious to know why they
| believe it is a villa rather than say, military in nature,
| especially given the history of the Romans in Britain.
| ggm wrote:
| I'm going out on a limb here with speculation: wall paint,
| tesserae and other signs of high status finishes to interior,
| and things like a hypocaust and food preparation spaces which
| don't meet the formalisms of a military facility. That said, I
| read of military owned staging posts with pretty high
| investment features like baths. 5 star roadside hotels for
| senior staffers and government officials on the move. So dual
| use, or military but fancy is possible. Also not an
| archaeologist
| mc32 wrote:
| Yep I think it's possible that someone on the outpost of
| their society might still want some semblance of their
| civilization while they are there.
| rendall wrote:
| The tower isn't central. That picture is not of the entire
| villa.
|
| Here's a video that shows more:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpdirRWJMA I recommend
| watching with sound off.
| StillLrning123 wrote:
| Wouldn't a tower have thicker walls? Medieval towers have
| walls that are several meters thick
| jacquesm wrote:
| The Romans were _way_ ahead of their time in terms of
| construction ability and plenty of the stuff made much
| later is downright crude by comparison.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Construction techniques aside, what was siege technology
| like in the Roman era? Did they build walls to resist
| heavy thrown rocks, or just arrows and infantry?
| Retric wrote:
| Catapults and other torsion where during the Roman
| empire, though the thickness of walls also related to how
| tall they needed to be to be effective. Anything under 30
| feet is easy to get over using simple ladders.
|
| The Trebuchet is plenty old enough, but we don't have
| evidence of use by Rome.
| mcguire wrote:
| As far as I know, it depends on what you mean by
| trebuchet. Counterpoise trebuchets (using heavy weights)
| are definitely medieval.
| Retric wrote:
| Yes, the giant weapons most people think of when they
| hear the term trebuchet is medieval improvement allowing
| people to further scale up the design. A mangonel
| (traction trebuchet) is the older design, but trebuchet
| is referring any scaled up staff sling.
| mcguire wrote:
| Greek and Roman catapults were lighter than medieval
| trebuchets, using tension or torsion springs rather than
| heavy weights, but were reasonably capable of hurling
| rocks well enough to take down a wall _eventually._ I don
| 't have an example offhand, but the Romans were more than
| happy to build thick walls to resist sieges if they
| needed to. My impression is that, fortification-wise,
| Romans preferred walls and ditches rather than single
| highly-fortified buildings like castles.
|
| On the other hand, Roman architecture was such that they
| did not need very thick stone walls to support high
| buildings.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Siege towers, battering rams mostly. The most effective
| siege technology was probably hunger... crude but quite
| effective.
|
| Oh and this is another thing they brought to bear on
| cities unwilling to bend to the Roman boot (or Sandal):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista
|
| and even more here:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_and_Roman_artillery
| unhammer wrote:
| Good riddance. I'm sure the folk of Scarborough don't want
| another occurrence of https://scarfolk.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-
| ghost-of-mrs-payne...
| theknocker wrote:
| randomcarbloke wrote:
| It seems reasonable to want to ensure proper excavation and to
| therefore rebury if the budget is not available to preserve or
| process the excavation, however it is still rather tragic,
| perhaps these articles will give the project enough visibility to
| chase better funding.
| scop wrote:
| Wow I had no idea archeologists do this, but it makes perfect
| sense. Reminds me of a commented TODO in code when time or
| resources do not allow a proper implementation.
| altacc wrote:
| History is full of instances of barbarism masquerading as
| archaeology, so gently investigating then reburying sites seems
| like an enlightened approach.
| [deleted]
| hinkley wrote:
| I went to the British Museum when I was in my twenties and it
| was not an experience I will repeat. That is not a place of
| honor, and even in a time before I became more aware of the
| concerns and troubles of indigenous peoples I felt
| uncomfortable the entire time I was in there.
|
| It wasn't a celebration of history. It was a dragon's hoard.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| All those monuments that happened to find themselves in ISIS
| and Taliban areas of control say hi.
| pessimizer wrote:
| https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/why-did-people-
| start-e...
|
| "By the 19th century, people were no longer consuming
| mummies to cure illness but Victorians were hosting
| "unwrapping parties" where Egyptian corpses would be
| unwrapped for entertainment at private parties."
| Hellion wrote:
| That doesn't excuse the actions and behaviors of the
| invaders who stole these artifacts dozens or hundreds of
| years before isis was even a thing.
|
| Btw things like isis are a direct consequence of actions
| taken by the English colonialists when they created
| artificial boundaries.
| DayDollar wrote:
| Which is why china, vietnam, and korea never recovered.
| That good old colonialist narrative has its place, but
| given enough time and counter examples, it just lacks the
| explenation power it once had. Which is a dangerous gap
| the left left open, for the racist idiots to settle in.
|
| Regarding the region.
|
| The societal rot had already set in way before that. The
| whole ottoman empire was on a down trend, ever since the
| trade went around them. Which is a good indicator how low
| value was whatever they themselves had to produce and to
| offer.
|
| To life in the shadow and ruins of the glorious past, it
| burns all men for what are they but lowcast creatures,
| fallen from up high..
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Which is why china, vietnam, and korea never recovered.
|
| What does economic performance have to do with the
| British museums being filled with looted cultural
| artifacts? You could have thrown in Greece in there (EU
| member), but Greece _also_ wants it 's looted artifacts
| back.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| What has it to do with economics?
|
| China's case was very different as well, the majority of
| the population (Han Chinese) were ruled by a foreign race
| (Qing) that were racist towards them in 1800s. Many Han
| Chinese fought alongside foreign powers and they did loot
| a lot.
|
| And it doesn't matter anyway, CCP rise to power and
| smashed everything in the name of Cultural Revolution.
| sangnoir wrote:
| I meant that the economic discussion is off topic
| concerning the subject in the article as well as the
| thread on looted cultural artifacts.
| rayiner wrote:
| > Btw things like isis are a direct consequence of
| actions taken by the English colonialists when they
| created artificial boundaries
|
| The Turks were the ones that conquered all those
| completely unrelated people in the first place. The
| British inherited their problem after World War I. But go
| on, I love this game of "brown people can't have moral
| agency."
| golergka wrote:
| Would you rather have Rosetta used as a recycled building
| material? And half of the artifacts recovered in Mesopotamia
| later destroyed by radical islamists?
| fckgw wrote:
| There are, in fact, a very wide range of options between
| "have the British steal it" and "destroy it".
| VictorPath wrote:
| Destroyed like the English banning the Irish language in
| schools in trying to destroy the Irish language?
|
| Insofar as radical Islamists, the English sided with and
| supported radical Islamists in Iran against Mossadegh and
| then against the secular left under the Shah. The English
| supported Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Watch Lawrence of
| Arabia, they do it and celebrate it. The English saving
| secular socialist pan-Arab nationalism against radical
| Islamists? Please.
|
| The real destruction of artifacts was the destruction of
| Iraq Museum during the UK's unprovoked invasion of that
| country. Which they of course blamed on Iraqis. These
| people are transparent.
| softfalcon wrote:
| As a Gaelic speaker (Scot's Gaelic) I feel you on the
| point about Irish Gaelic in schools. It's pretty shocking
| how hypocritical and selfish the English government/crown
| has been throughout history. They can try and cover it
| up, but at the end of the day, they're really just
| stealing things and getting away with it cause they're
| rich, powerful, and militarily dominant compared to their
| targets.
| capableweb wrote:
| I think they are saying that they would prefer the
| artifacts to remain in the countries where they were found.
| Saying that the artifacts would be destroyed if they were
| not taken to the British Museum seems a bit too much.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| I don't think it is "a bit much"
|
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/150901
| -is...
| VictorPath wrote:
| Iraq? From 1958 to 2003 Iraq preserved its cultural
| heritage fine. Then the UK invaded and the Iraq museum
| treasures were lost. The UK of course blames this on the
| Iraqis. The country is thrown into turmoil, to a tut-tut
| by upper middle class white westerners about how the
| Arabs aren't preserving their cultural heritage. This is
| why Arabs fighting against colonialism and imperialism
| fly planes into the Pentagon.
| darkhorse222 wrote:
| How about when Isis blew up those buddhist statues?
| seri4l wrote:
| Assuming you're referring to the Buddhas of Bamiyan,
| those were blown up by the Taliban, not ISIS.
| hinkley wrote:
| It's exactly the same sort of paternalism that tore apart
| the British empire in the first place.
|
| You guys are too stupid to take care of this obelisk so
| we're just going to take it. K bye.
|
| Even if you're 100% right you look like an asshole, and
| if you don't repatriate it when the place has a stable
| government then you're just proving your rationalization
| was fully self-serving.
| [deleted]
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| An interesting case is the Pergamon museum in Berlin,
| which as an aside is an absolutely breathtaking museum to
| visit. Most of the big exhibits like the Ishtar gate were
| in place by the 1930s, where they subsequently
| experienced WW2. The market gate in particular was
| damaged by bombs and had to be restored after the war.
| That restoration failed due to improper conservation and
| more work had to be done in the 2000s.
|
| As far as I'm aware, there's never been serious
| discussion of the safety of things in Berlin though.
| Considerations of safety really only go one way.
| hinkley wrote:
| I will say that my ex was a fan of a particular Spanish
| artist, and she was very upset to discover only while
| standing in the Spanish wing of the Louvre that her
| favorite painting had been repatriated to Spain, and only
| some small examples of his work remained. Google was only
| an infant at the time, and learning about art history
| from a book has its limitations.
|
| I couldn't blame them for wanting a famous work back for
| their own museum, but it was a major bummer all the same.
| But Spain is not iron curtain era Berlin, or a tumultuous
| Middle East, so it's hardly a fair comparison. It's
| difficult to find a balance, but what we know of peak
| British Empire, from every emancipated colony, is that
| they just didn't care.
|
| People like to complain about how arrogant the US is and
| I just think of that old anti drug commercial, "I learned
| it from watching you, Dad." Parents who do drugs have
| kids who do drugs.
| rayiner wrote:
| > I became more aware of the concerns and troubles of
| indigenous peoples
|
| What a weirdly condescending comment.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Sure. The main tensions in archaeology are:
|
| 1) It was first established by European men and women looting
| to fill their "curio cabinets," which makes it hard to position
| it as a noble field.
|
| 2) digging something up later (with more advanced technology)
| will always be better than digging it up now. There's even some
| people who believe the only ethical archaeology is that which
| occurs before an area would be otherwise destroyed (i.e. before
| a construction project happens)
|
| The above makes career archaeologists (at least the good ones)
| a bit neurotic. This seems like an example of that, I just hope
| their preservation methods aren't accidentally destructive.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I can't think of a single field of study that wasn't
| established by Europeans seeking status, except possibly for
| mathematics which was established by Babylonians seeking
| grains.
| XorNot wrote:
| Recognising that history is important to not repeating it.
| whatshisface wrote:
| A whole lot of status-seeking goes on in science today.
| throwawayacc2 wrote:
| I get the wish to preserve but I don't understand why burry it
| back? Why not encase it in a temperature/climate controlled
| structure? I've seen plenty archaeological digs like this. Is
| it due to money or why?
| vanderZwan wrote:
| The soil itself also contains information. Not disturbing
| that unless necessary will let future archaeologists with
| better technology extract more information.
|
| Also, I'm guessing that the sand encasing the site _is_ a
| temperature /climate controlled structure when buried
| properly. No sunlight and no air, for starters.
| fluoridation wrote:
| That's a valid argument against ever performing any dig
| whatsoever, since it's always true that future
| archeologists might have better technology to extract more
| information from anything you find.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Exactly right. This is a question that archaeologists are
| always supposed to ask before digging. If there's a
| justification for having the answer now (like an
| immediate research need or a threat to the site), then
| excavation may proceed. Even then, you excavate as little
| as you need as nondestructively as possible. Usually
| that'll be a single trench/pit you excavate with hand
| tools and re-cover when you're finished.
|
| Most regions have databases full of known sites that are
| unexcavated because there's never been a justification
| for digging.
| throwawayacc2 wrote:
| Knowledge for knowledge sake is not considered
| justification?
| fknorangesite wrote:
| It might be, if you have infinite amounts of time and
| resources and expertise.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| I suspect the missing bit of context here is that we have
| a lot more potential sites than that we have
| archaeologists with the time and budget to investigate
| all of them.
|
| So in programmer terms, most potential sites never make
| it out of the priority queue
| alrlroipsp wrote:
| Correct. This is why like 99% of all known archeological
| sites is still unexcavated in parts of the world.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| Compared to a fully equipped and financed archeology team
| from today, which is not the case. Those who discovered
| the site know they are underequipped and underfunded _for
| the specific site_. In this case, reburying is cheap and
| effective.
| ziddoap wrote:
| Thankfully, there is a suitable middle ground of
| extracting some reasonable amount of information now and
| preserving some of the site for later.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Catch-22: since future archaeologists have better
| technology, no digs are performed right now--thus
| archaeological technology is not needed, and there is no
| pressure to improve it.
| corobo wrote:
| I imagine the newer tech comes from outside archaeology
|
| Radar, X-ray, that sort of thing
| louky wrote:
| They had radar and geomagnetic mapping back in the 1990s,
| at least - Time team did ~250 digs that were broadcast on
| channel 4 and are now all on youtube, most in HD now.
|
| And "geophysics" were used to decide what and where to
| dig in most of them. They're making new episodes now, as
| well.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/TimeTeamClassics
| corobo wrote:
| They were examples of technology that came from outside
| of archaeology. I don't know what the future tech is
| called as I've not seen it yet :P
| curun1r wrote:
| Damage comes in many forms and temperature/climate controlled
| rooms only prevent a certain kind of damage.
|
| The ancient city of Palmyra was irreparably destroyed by Isis
| in 2015. No amount of climate control would have protected it
| from the explosive charges that destroyed it.
|
| Reburying sites like these will better protect them from
| deliberate damage and incidental damage from wars and such.
| Archaeologists deal with a timescale that often can't assume
| political stability of the area where they dig stuff up. It's
| better to not assume that future generations will pay the
| electric bill to keep the site preserved.
| yk wrote:
| The archeologists basically studied for the last year, what
| being buried in that climate and that kind of soil does to
| the structure. So they understand extremely well if reburying
| is a good idea or not.
| spenczar5 wrote:
| Yes, cost. Enclosing an entire estate in a climate controlled
| structure in northern England is very expensive.
| tantalor wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > In some cases, resources (like money, staff and proper
| materials) are not available to properly maintain the site.
| jq-r wrote:
| This. This stuff happens all the time. So there is a new
| construction planned somewhere, workers accidentally find
| some walls etc. Archeological team is dispatched, they
| remove much more ground, as much as to see how big the
| object(s) are, what era, figure out they have a
| archeological gold mine. But they don't have resources
| (money) allocated for it yet, so they will rebury it. Next
| year, or in the coming years they'll come back and do the
| proper excavation. And if I may add a bit sarcastically, a
| PhD or three.
| debacle wrote:
| Anyone who has watched Time Team understands why this took place.
|
| England is filthy with Roman ruins, among other sorts. But only
| when you have a noteworthy celebrity, a reality TV show, and
| everything that is involved in that, do you have an opportunity
| to even scrape the surface on many of these sites. The funding
| just isn't there.
|
| The work is hard, complex, interdisciplinary, and mostly unsexy.
| But the findings are sometimes incredible.
| timthorn wrote:
| > But only when you have a noteworthy celebrity, a reality TV
| show, and everything that is involved in that, do you have an
| opportunity to even scrape the surface on many of these sites.
| The funding just isn't there.
|
| Or proposed building works - most day-to-day archaeology is
| funded by developers as part of the planning process.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Kinda stingy with the pictures. I'd like to see a photo showing
| the excellent craftsmanship the article discusses.
| m0llusk wrote:
| Usually the evidence of craftsmanship is fragmentary.
| Ornamental decorations such as engraving and paints survive on
| bits of structure, plaster, and statuary that allow experts to
| reconstruct the larger whole.
| samizdis wrote:
| There are some pictures (13) on the local newspaper's site, but
| they're mostly similar aerial shots and there's not really any
| crafsmanship on display:
|
| https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/people/in-pictures...
| labrador wrote:
| I didn't know "reburying" was a thing but I like the idea.
| beloch wrote:
| It's pretty common. If the site isn't about to be turned into
| the foundations of a new supermarket (This is a common fate for
| archaeological sites), you can't just leave an open pit behind.
| People might fall in! Plus everything deteriorates faster when
| exposed to the elements. Erecting a building to protect the
| site might be a nice idea... If you had a lot of money and
| nothing else to do with it. Some ruins will attract tourists if
| you build a nice museum around them, but most are too
| uninteresting or remote to attract enough people to make this
| worthwhile.
|
| Reburying sites is standard practice. They survived hundreds or
| thousands of years buried under dirt, so putting the dirt back
| may help preserve them for hundreds or thousands of years more.
|
| Another practice that may surprise you is that archaeologists
| often dig up only _parts_ of a site, _deliberately_. i.e. They
| 'll leave some parts where they think there's something
| interesting untouched. They do this because digging is a
| destructive process. Any information that can be gleaned from
| digging up a site has to be done with the technology and
| methods of the day. Archaeologists of the future might be able
| to learn substantially more than archaeologists of today from
| the same column of earth. So, you dig up only _part_ of the
| site and leave other parts completely untouched so that future
| archaeologists can return and learn things you couldn 't.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Seems that archaeologists are some of the few people who care
| about the future, as well as the past.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| One very common justification archaeologists give for their
| field existing beyond heritage preservation is that it can
| help inform our own responses to future events.
| Archaeology/history is our only long-term view of societies
| and how they've adapted to changing conditions
| historically.
|
| The actual application of that research remains a bit
| limited though.
| toyg wrote:
| It doesn't necessarily have to have a direct future-
| looking application; just comprehending why things are
| the way they are today, has value in itself -
| particularly in the political sphere.
| donatj wrote:
| I've always had the somewhat silly thought to myself "What if the
| archaeological record only goes back to the point of past
| archaeologists digging everything up?"
| trident5000 wrote:
| "when investigating land slated for a housing development" what
| happens to the owners/developers when this type of thing happens?
| Are they reimbursed by the state?
| tssva wrote:
| People have been building on top of previously occupied sites
| or tearing down buildings to build new ones for our entire
| history. Suddenly in the latter half of the 1900s it was
| decided preserving these sites was for some reason I can't
| comprehend vitally important. We have chosen to stagnate
| because of the actions of prior generations.
| mcguire wrote:
| Mostly a case-by-case thing, I think. I know (from watching
| Time Team) that in Britain there are a fair number of fields
| which the farmer can farm, but can't dig deeper than that due
| to the archaeology. Other cases have existing buildings ("Oh,
| by the way, you have an iron-age cemetery under your house.
| Enjoy!"). In cases of new development, it would be investigated
| pretty thoroughly to determine whether it should be protected
| (involving negotiations with the developer), or either entirely
| excavated or just left and the development continues.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-10 23:00 UTC)