Section 4.4 - The Archaeological interpretation .... - (min. 10:18)

Loading...

En provenance du cours de Sapienza University of Rome

Recovering the Humankind's Past and Saving the Universal Heritage

116 notes

Sapienza University of Rome

Recovering the Humankind's Past and Saving the Universal Heritage

116 notes

Archaeology is, among human sciences, the discipline with the strongest importance for the rediscovery, but also for the preservation and protection of cultural heritage, as Humankind’s universal patrimony. You will be introduced to the way we ourselves reflect on and are engaged with the study of human past: from the practical and material recovery of ancient traces in the field to the study and interpretation. On the other hand, the discovery of human past implies the correct conservation and presentation for both experts and general public: the study and protection of the past we share every day prevent from any possible destruction, misuse, abuse and thus cancellation of human memory. “Recovering the Humankind's Past and Saving the Universal Heritage” presents to a large public Archaeology as a historical discipline: through an inter-disciplinary perspective you will follow the evolution and change of archaeology to the moment when natural sciences contributed to make the historical reconstructions scientifically sound; the aid of informatics and of virtual reconstructions gives new fascination to the already strong suggestion of Archaeology, as the discipline of discovery par excellence. Within this frame, Ebla, which is the glory of the Sapienza school of Oriental archaeology, will have an exemplary meaning in the course development as a long lasting experience on the field and an excellent example of the scientific results of combined researches and disciplines. Moreover, the course will focus on actual, innovative instruments to preserve, monitor and give value to cultural heritage through a multidisciplinary approach, based on a deep archaeological and historical knowledge but also on ICT technologies. The wide adoption of ICT technologies in our daily life is also impacting in the way in which we interact with our cultural heritage in particular in terms of preservation and dissemination of cultural objects. In this course you will learn the basic techniques to digitize cultural objects and obtain 3D digital copies of a physical objects such as statues, vases or archaeological sites. We will also discuss how to structure the raw data in order to facilitate and make effective the access to digital contents. In particular, we will present the European Data Model, a framework for collecting, connecting and enriching data on cultural objects provided by a number of museum, archives, sites and libraries in Europe.

À partir de la leçon

Week 4 - The birth of archaeology and its role in the contemporary world.

Material remains of the past and their state of recovery vary according also to environments. Surface surveys lead to a more intense knowledge of territories, visualizing archaeologicallandscapes in a variety of ecological situations. The objectives of archaeological research have been moulded in the historical development of the discipline. Historical sources have always been a sourceof inspiration for research, opening new problems. Chronology is a construct depending on dating tools, and scientific methods have been employed in determining an absolute chronology. Homework available since

Section 4.1 - Discovery in Archaeology, the responsability of discovering, to discover is to destroy - (min. 11:21)11:21

Section 4.2 - Stratigraphical Archaeology .... - (min. 15:28)15:28

Section 4.3 - The Archaeological excavation as operation of Harmony .... - (min. 12:07)12:07

Section 4.4 - The Archaeological interpretation .... - (min. 10:18)10:18

Rencontrer les enseignants

Paolo Matthiae
Emeritus Professor of Archaeology
Dipartimento delle Scienze dell'Antichità
Davide Nadali
PhD in Near Eastern Archaeology
Andrea Vitaletti
Ph.D. in Computer Science
Computer Science
Emanuel Demetrescu
PhD candidate

In this lessons, I would like to introduce you to a third aspect of

great fascination of archaeology,

after those of the discovery, and

of work. The two first aspects of fascination we have described

concerned field archaeology, namely the operations made on the excavation field.

The third aspect of no less fascination, on

the other hand, concerns the interpretation of the discovery.

In fact, we may observe that, when the archaeologist is

engaged in the interpretation of discoveries, technical and

theoretical aspects emerge, which at the moment do not interest us.

I mean that, just to mention one example, as concerns the technical sphere,

in order to interpret an evidence, like in any other human science,

we need a preliminary analysis of the quality of our sources,

of their integrity, and their consequent validity:

in other words, what is maintained about a written source holds true also for

an evidence of material culture.

Again, just to make a very limited example,

as regards the theoretical sphere, in modern archaeology we ascertained

that, in general terms, our analysis will be all of the more fruitful if

they will be “contaminated” by the methods of other human sciences,

like, for instance, ethnology,

linguistics, economics, sociology, history of religion, and history of art.

Today, on the other hand,

we will deal with another facet concerning archeological interpretation, which holds

true whichever path that we will follow along the technical and theoretical lines.

Thus, when we face a problem of interpretation of an archaeological

evidence, the itinerary we follow as archaeologists, whichever the more or

less sophisticated critical tools is always swinging between the two poles of

identity and alterity.

What does this statement mean, which may appear enigmatic and paradoxical?

We mean to say that, as the object of each archaeological research

was always produced by a human society in a period and in a time more or

less distant from us in time and space, that objects, so to say, takes always part

in a variable percentage of identity and alterity with regard to our modern world.

Each artifact, in fact, from the most monumental architecture to

the simplest tool of any civilization of the remote, or of recent past,

being man-made, may look quite similar to something we are accustomed to see,

because we recognize in it something familiar to our experience, and

our knowledge:

in this instance, the artifact is placed on the side of identity.

Yet, it may also happen that the artifact looks

like quite distant from anything we are accustomed to see,

so we cannot recognize in it anything familiar to our experience and

our knowledge:

in this second instance, for

example, the artifact is placed on the side of alterity.

Of course, in the study of the past each artifact concerning archaeology, but

even each work or

idea not belonging to material culture, is played on the side of identity,

or on the side of alterity with regard to our world.

Yet, we should say better that each artifact, or idea from

the past is never placed completely on the side of identity or alterity, but

it rather shares some identity, and some alterity at the same time.

The percentage of identity and alterity of an artifact, or an idea form the past

as compared with the modern world may change in quite a notable way.

Let's make some clearer example, keeping ourselves in the sphere of material culture,

which is peculiar to archaeology.

When archaeologists for example, deal with the study of a Roman circus or

amphitheater, at first sight, when asked which share of identity and

which share of alterity they can single out in that architectural artifact,

the temptation is strong to answer that they share of identity

is really very high, because we can recognize in

those monuments something very similar to our model stadiums,

because we know that they held there shows similar

to modern sport events, because we know that

sometimes their audience reached thousands, in a way not different from nowadays.

Yet, the first impression which leads us to believe that an ancient circus or

amphitheater is quite similar is in fact wrong.

First, because of the structure of an ancient circus or amphitheater are really

different in several technical aspects from those of modern stadiums.

Second, because the types of game, and competitions which were held in

those places, were quite different from those held in our stadiums nowadays.

And third, because there is only a very vague similarity in cultural, and

psychological attitude between ancient, and modern spectators.

Certainly, there are not secondary similarities between those

ancient monuments and

modern sports structures in their shapes, concept, functions, uses, spectators,

but these analogies do not allow us to believe, as we just maintained, the rate of

identity is extremely high, but rather quite high.

To make an example on the other side, that of alterity,

when archaeologists deal with the study of quite enigmatic evidences, like

the imposing statues of Easter Island in the Pacific Oceans,

of course, at the first sight, one may think that, here, the rate of alterity is

extremely high because everything is mysterious in these material remains:

who made them, when they were made and how they were made?

For which aim they were erected?

Which life did they have?

But, if we overcome this first impression of great discouragement, and

we study the customs, rules and beliefs of the people of those remote islands,

albeit in a cultural context strongly marked by alterity,

we will discover that the ritual reasons for those peculiar remains are not so

foreign to those of a number of cultures set really far from out mentality, and

yet not totally incomprehensible:

in this case, we may exactly say that the rate of identity is quite low,

while the rate of alterity is quite high.

Just in order to make one example only, concerning rather, ideology

rather than material culture, it is not difficult to maintain that for modern

scholars the gods of Greek religion show quite high percentage of identity, because

the passions of the deities in the Homeric poems are totally comprehensible to us,

though they can hardly be related with our concept of deities;

on the other hand, the gods of Egyptian religion must be placed on the side of

a quite high rate of alterity, for their peculiar at the same time human, and

animal aspects, and for the behavior in myths.

The statement that one aspect of great fascination of

archaeology, not concerning discoveries or procedures, but rather interpretation,

is the fact that it walks in a path always swinging between identity and

alterity, and this is particularly important for two reasons.

The first reason is that, if we always keep in our mind that any evidence or

remain from the past shares at the same time aspects of identity and

alterity, albeit in quite different rates,

we do not risk to make one of the typical mistakes of

much of the not scientific archaeological popularization,

namely the trivialization, and modernization of the past.

As we will think that we know better what is similar to something we already know,

when we think we understand better something from the past,

we tend to assimilate it within the sphere of identity:

if we are told that in the world of the Sumerian city-states of the 3rd

millennium BC there were institutions similar to the democratic rules of

the Greek towns, and we are being told of a “Sumerian democracy”, let's to say,

we believe we understand better those towns and

institutions, because we assimilate them, totally

unduly, to government systems and social institutions

which are quite familiar to us, that is we place them on the side of identity.

So we wrongly believe we understand an important aspect of

the ancient Sumerian civilization, yet, on the contrary, we falsify it,

because we make of it, against all evidence, and in a totally antihistorical way,

only an antecedent of a phenomenon of Greek civilization, with

which it has nothing to share.

Only if our critical conscience is quite vigilant,

and if we always keep in mind that every remain from the past cannot be

completely flattened on the side either of identity or alterity,

we will be able to understand what in Sumerian institutions was

origional and positive,

though they had nothing to share with those of classical Greece.

The second reason is that, if we do believe that archaeological research

always follows, as we have maintained, that a difficult and

suggestive path between identity and alterity, we will be able to appreciate

that the archaeologist's profession, for the modes of interpretation, is a kind of

gymnasium, training to recognize, and respect alterity.

And finally, in our modern times, often characterized by trends of intolerance

agains alterity and diversity, this is extremely positive.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play