4 ms·

The work is in proportion to the amount of documents that are retained today. The reason why Rome and Greece are "popular" is they determined intellectual thoug

The work is in proportion to the amount of documents that are retained today. The reason why Rome and Greece are "popular" is they determined intellectual thought from the fall of the Western Rome until, probably, humanism (some one millennia later) so much of what they wrote down has been retained (or, more accurately, wasn't destroyed). As an example: we know Carthage was a huge civilisation...until Rome razed it so we have no real idea today what ancient Carthage actually was like apart from that it was significant enough for Rome to burn to the ground. Also, talking about "Europeans" is indicative of a total misconception of history in the period. Rome was a Mediterranean as much as a European one (north of Rome wasn't Europe as today, it was just a bunch of tribes). Many important figures that, ironically, people today say are examples of an over-emphasis on "Europeans" were Africans. Augustine being the best example, basically founded the theology of the early Church, he was a Roman but he was (in today's terms) also African. In short, trying to read the present back into the future is not smart.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
The work of archaeologists is absolutely not in proportion to the amount of surviving documents. Most of my digs have been in places and periods with few to no written records, for example. As for the comment about Europeans, I was talking about modern academics (particularly of the early through late 20th century). The leading archaeologists of that period primarily came from European and American traditions. I have no idea what Augustine has to do with 20th century academia. Please feel free to enlighten me if there's a connection though.
- hogFeast 6y ago
  That wasn't the claim. You should read the reply chain but the point isn't about archaeology but our interpretation of civilization outside Rome and Greece. You wanted to know why these civilizations get that share of work...the reason why is that their thought was more relevant to us (again, most Europeans believed in Aristotelian science until humanism). And, again, these civilizations were more African than European...it is nothing to do with racism (which was the implication). That wasn't the claim. I will explain, although you would do just as well to go back and read what I said more closely...again. The point is: many people who are perceived to be part of the European tradition (i.e. Rome/Greece) are not Europeans. So when someone says: Europe has got a disproportionate share of work, these regions are ignored, their civilizations are ignored...this is wrong. Most of these civilizations were mutli-culutural/multi-national, and included Africa (the other big contributor would be the Middle East). Again, attempting to read the current political view onto the past. And the point about Augustine is that he was African, the point about academics who say things like: we are too Euro-centric is that they define Europe in a way that makes no historical sense (unsurprisingly, as they are usually arguing about things in the present, not anything related to history...the concept of Europe itself is not something with a clear historical meaning).
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    It seems like there might be a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Quoting myself: > ..the 3 classical areas of Rome, Greece, and Egypt have gotten a very disproportionate share of work... Greece and Rome (in the sense of the empire) are literally the "classic" in so-called classical archaeology [1]. Egypt is included because it's comparable for this particular case and there's a pretty substantial overlap with "core" classical archaeology. Again, I've written nothing about whether these areas encompass parts of Africa nor whether they were wholly European. I also haven't implicated racism as the reason for that disproportionate amount of study. The things you're criticizing aren't my views and trying to put words into my mouth isn't appreciated. [1] https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-students/majors-and-minors/classical-archaeology.html https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-students/majors...
- akkartik 6y ago
  Wonderful to see an archeologist here!
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    Former, unfortunately. I work in tech nowadays.
tremon 6y ago
north of Rome wasn't Europe as today, it was just a bunch of tribes This is a mischaracterization in the same class as what's described in the article. Early Rome was just as tribal as the rest of Europe, and Greece has been tribal for almost its entire (ancient) existence. The major difference is that the tribes of Northern Europe seem to have been much less well documented, but they didn't live in isolation. There's ample evidence of trade routes spanning from the Iberian peninsula to the Carpathians, and across the British isles, the Nordic and Baltic states. The "bunch of tribes" encountered by the Romans was actually a vast Celtic empire, which was itself preceded by other societies such as the Bell Beaker or Corded Ware cultures. But they've largely disappeared from the record because of the written legacy from the Greek and Roman empires.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

The work of archaeologists is absolutely not in proportion to the amount of surviving documents. Most of my digs have been in places and periods with few to no written records, for example. As for the comment about Europeans, I was talking about modern academics (particularly of the early through late 20th century). The leading archaeologists of that period primarily came from European and American traditions. I have no idea what Augustine has to do with 20th century academia. Please feel free to enlighten me if there's a connection though.

hogFeast 6y ago
That wasn't the claim. You should read the reply chain but the point isn't about archaeology but our interpretation of civilization outside Rome and Greece. You wanted to know why these civilizations get that share of work...the reason why is that their thought was more relevant to us (again, most Europeans believed in Aristotelian science until humanism). And, again, these civilizations were more African than European...it is nothing to do with racism (which was the implication). That wasn't the claim. I will explain, although you would do just as well to go back and read what I said more closely...again. The point is: many people who are perceived to be part of the European tradition (i.e. Rome/Greece) are not Europeans. So when someone says: Europe has got a disproportionate share of work, these regions are ignored, their civilizations are ignored...this is wrong. Most of these civilizations were mutli-culutural/multi-national, and included Africa (the other big contributor would be the Middle East). Again, attempting to read the current political view onto the past. And the point about Augustine is that he was African, the point about academics who say things like: we are too Euro-centric is that they define Europe in a way that makes no historical sense (unsurprisingly, as they are usually arguing about things in the present, not anything related to history...the concept of Europe itself is not something with a clear historical meaning).
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  It seems like there might be a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Quoting myself: > ..the 3 classical areas of Rome, Greece, and Egypt have gotten a very disproportionate share of work... Greece and Rome (in the sense of the empire) are literally the "classic" in so-called classical archaeology [1]. Egypt is included because it's comparable for this particular case and there's a pretty substantial overlap with "core" classical archaeology. Again, I've written nothing about whether these areas encompass parts of Africa nor whether they were wholly European. I also haven't implicated racism as the reason for that disproportionate amount of study. The things you're criticizing aren't my views and trying to put words into my mouth isn't appreciated. [1] https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-students/majors-and-minors/classical-archaeology.html https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-students/majors...
akkartik 6y ago
Wonderful to see an archeologist here!
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Former, unfortunately. I work in tech nowadays.

tremon 6y ago

north of Rome wasn't Europe as today, it was just a bunch of tribes This is a mischaracterization in the same class as what's described in the article. Early Rome was just as tribal as the rest of Europe, and Greece has been tribal for almost its entire (ancient) existence. The major difference is that the tribes of Northern Europe seem to have been much less well documented, but they didn't live in isolation. There's ample evidence of trade routes spanning from the Iberian peninsula to the Carpathians, and across the British isles, the Nordic and Baltic states. The "bunch of tribes" encountered by the Romans was actually a vast Celtic empire, which was itself preceded by other societies such as the Bell Beaker or Corded Ware cultures. But they've largely disappeared from the record because of the written legacy from the Greek and Roman empires.