[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)