by Rachel Sites
Great. As if there weren’t already far too many technical aspects of being a modern day, progressive archaeologist. Now we’re adding satellites to the mix? The recent vindication of the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s satellite imaging-based Egyptology project, headed by Dr. Sarah Parcak, is likely only the tip of the iceberg in forthcoming technological advancements. The project, now running for over a year, has so far found 17 unknown pyramids, over 1,000 tombs and 3,000 settlements by analysis of infra-red images shot by extremely strong cameras on satellites orbiting 700km above the Earth’s surface. The theory behind the project is that infra-red allows the differing densities of mud-brick from ancient buildings to be distinguished from the overlying soils and recent independent excavations at two of the sites have confirmed the satellite images.
Last Updated (Wednesday, 19 October 2011 11:26)
|
 Summary of ‘Bunnygate’ so far (all links can be found below this article):
On 21st of June, it was reported on the Eastern Daily Press website that the previous night at the FDC Design Awards a speech had been made by Councillor Alan Melton, leader of the Fenland District Council, in which he claimed that development regulations in the Cambridgeshire Fenlands were to be ‘relaxed’. The article reported that Mr. Melton stated that from July 1st, planning regulations would be ‘swept aside’ to ease the difficulties that many developers are facing, including any regulations pertaining to archaeological survey and investigation (PPS5). Conservation rules were also to be relaxed. Melton went on to say that he realised this would not please the ‘bunny huggers’ and ‘historic lefties’, but that if they still wished to examine sites they could do so while footings were being dug. This was in order to stop the ‘stupid’ requirement of having to strip a full site. Any surveys “that are currently in the pipeline and that are not currently subject to litigation but are giving grief can be discarded - tomorrow morning.” Melton’s slightly bizarre justification for this appeared to be that “I don’t believe the Polar Bears will be floating down the Nene in my life time or indeed my children’s.”
Last Updated (Thursday, 30 June 2011 11:36)
by Rachel Sites
Every week, my flatmate and I have a gabfest over a cup of tea/coffee/ adult beverage depending on the type of day it’s been. I like to bring news of the world into play, as I enjoy a non-archaeological humanities perspective, especially from someone who never suffered through the special torture known as American “liberal arts”, which force-feeds the news watching habit. Yesterday, I offhandedly mentioned the recent find of an eighteenth century Californian mission constructed to convert (read: exploit) the local Chumash Indians. I was looking at it from a preservation perspective, both that it remained relatively intact even after 200 years of repeated building episodes and that it’s just not fair how much more historical material is found on a long-forgotten site (but that’s the usual wail of a prehistorian). I was bemoaning the drive for “modernization” even in Ventura, CA’s so-called historic district that prompted the excavation as a just-in-case legality before developers take over when my flatmate, used to tuning out my archaeological conversational asides, exclaimed, “Wait, you mean that tribe that tried to kill Xander on Buffy? I know them! You mean they’re real?”
by Freya Massey
The excavation of human remains for archaeological study has always been a contentious issue. On a personal level, as long as the deceased individuals are treated with care and respect and were excavated because it was believed that they would be a significant component in the furthering of our knowledge of the past, then I’m all for it. However, a couple of recent stories related to the recovery of the remains of two significant, but very different, figures have made the news, and the actions, intentions and perceived results don’t sit right with me .
Last Updated (Friday, 06 May 2011 14:28)
by Rachel Sites
We’ve all heard the debates about getting the public interested and involved in archaeology. Probably ad nauseum at this point. But here’s a tiny rant from the other side of issue. When does disseminating information about finds become harmful? When does letting potentially inflammatory preliminary data loose on an unsuspecting and ignorant public cause more damage in the long run? Harsh? Perhaps. But let’s take a look at the “recent” find of the lead codices in Jordan, which has been stirring religious tempers all over the place for a multitude of reasons.
First of all, the 70-ish little, wire bound lead booklets were actually found in menorah marked niches in a cave Jordan between 2005 and 2007. Or did they belong to an Israeli Bedouin family for the last 100 years? There is no clear provenience to the codices, something the average reader of the online news outlets that sensationalized the find in March of this year doesn’t necessarily pick up on in all the furore over whether these texts, in coded Hebrew, eclipse the Dead Sea Scrolls in significance for Christianity.
|
|
Thursday, 13 October 2011 14:19 | 
Written by Rachel Sites | 
| 
| 
Subscribe to RSS Feed