Questions of doom. Hello and welcome back to another questions of doom. In this series, as ever, I attempt to answer questions that you send my way using the [email protected] email address as displayed on the YouTube channel homepage, but as you'll also see at the end of this video, in answering these questions by video, it is my fond hope that the answer is not only useful to the person who's asked the question, but also anyone else out there who may be wondering the same thing. Now, today's question, I think, goes to the heart of what many people think archaeology is and um and is certainly worth far more consideration than than you might initially think. And actually, to be honest, more consideration than I initially thought. And the question is very simple. It's actually a statement really. Um Ralph said this. Here's a question for you. Is antiquarianism archaeology? And I have to say, Ralph, I'm not going to lie, when I got that particular question on the Facebook page, I was a little bit I was in a bit of a bad mood. I'd had a bit of an annoying piece of news. And uh I was a nat's wing, a hair's breath away from just responding very quickly and slightly sharply, "No, go and look at a dictionary." Um, but I'm so glad that I didn't because, you know, I really don't like it when my bad mood gets the better of me. if if I am in a bad mood and uh and the more I thought about it, the more I thought actually this this question is on the one hand very very easy to answer. Let me just get that get that out of the way. Very easy to answer. But on the other hand, there are elements there are things when you scratch the surface which are worth just flagging and commenting on. So thank you so much Ralph for that question. There's no such thing as a bad question. There can though be bad mooded answers as it were. Now, um I'm actually going to start by taking my own advice and checking the dictionary. So, first of all, let's have a look at the dictionary definition for antiquarianism. Uh relating to or dealing in antiques or rare books, antiquarian book sellers, for example, relating to the study of antiquities. Uh and also a person perhaps who studies or collects antiques or antiquities. So, that's a dictionary definition of I suppose an antiquarian. Now let's have a look at the dictionary definition of an archaeologist um or rather archaeology and therefore archaeologists um the study of human activity primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind. Now this is this is where I say this question on the on the face of it is very easy to answer. Uh if you look at the two different definitions one is all about the stuff. Usually antiquarians like old stuff, stuff which they can sell often for a profit. Uh certainly stuff which is um for having and and its value comes from its its age. So an antiquarian is is a stuff obsessed obsessed person um and often a person who who uh um surrounds themsel with stuff in their private lives from ancient times and perhaps even gets involved in the the darker side of the trade in antiquities. Um an archaeologist however is interested in what the stuff can tell you. the people who left the stuff behind which entered the archaeological record. And and yes, okay, this stuff often ends up on display in museums, but usually they're interested in in how that stuff can be used to tell a story about people in the past. But uh even though the answer is straightforward and simple, I could just end this video there. It's worthwhile reflecting, I think, on uh on the fact that it's not that simple. If we consider for example two fictitious archaeologists, Lara Croft and Indiana Jones, these are are two of the most famous um I suppose representatives symbols of of archaeology certainly in popular culture around the world. And what they are are I suppose stuff obsessed. Usually they're chasing down individual treasures or or individual uh keys to get into tombs full of treasure. And yes, okay, they have to have some background knowledge of of cultures which may help them in their quest, maybe in reading languages or in in uh in solving riddles, but they're not necessarily there to inch by inch record a site, for example. Uh and as we saw in in a recent playthrough of of the most recent Lara Croft game, sometimes whole tombs get destroyed or even blown up on their adventures. So Laura Coft and Indiana Jones as I suppose ambassadors for archaeology aren't very good ones because they're stuff obsessed. Now you may be going oh well Mr. Soup sat at home as an archaeologist I am not stuff obsessed. I am a good archaeologist. Yes but see I think this actually seeps into archaeology too. Often we become fixated on the things we find um on a on for example Roman dig. Maybe a beautiful ring has been discovered or a particular statue or a head for example at Binchester. Um maybe we become really enamored with some leather shoes which have been discovered for example in York and we start to sort of forget to ask questions about the people behind that stuff. Now in the case of for example at Binchester I know full well that actually they are asking questions about what the art style meant for the society and who might have carved it and this kind of thing but sometimes the stuff certainly in the headlines of these sites and therefore often in in our minds can start to overtake the story of the people. So in some ways actually I think the the risk of being an antiquarian of being stuff obsessed is a very real one for archaeologists. If we actually take this further and flip the coin, some people who are named antiquarians, people who for example were studying the past and studying things from the past before archaeology became a thing. Um, some of these people such as famously probably most famously William Stoley uh 17th and 18th century antiquarian. Um some of these people are are actually incipient early uh landscape archaeologists for example putting Stonehenge in a landscapecape context. Sure making lots of assumptions which which we later we we as we prove to be wrong or we sometimes dismiss as being naive but nonetheless trying to figure out what the monument means. And isn't that is that not archaeology um or a form of archaeology? Now clearly people who are antiquarians um especially for example from the 16th and 17th into the 18th and 19th centuries did start to take on that hoarding selling um um curiosity cabinet owning sort of uh mentality. But out of that actually came archaeology. Out of that out of that the most the most I suppose the most earnest studyers of the of this material became archaeologists. And even though yes there there are there are horror stories of vicers going out and digging barrerows in a weekend and just finding useless bones um uh there are people um uh who out of that out of these these these things that they collected uh started to create theories for such as the three age system the uh the stone the bronze and the iron age for example. So it it's it's it's it's very interesting actually. The more you sort of scratch at this stuff, the more you think perhaps archaeologists sometimes need to check themselves and make sure that that they're not too stuff obsessed. Now, how can we do that? What are the alternatives to being I suppose uh stuff and artifact obsessed? Well, one is one which actually I flagged in this month's uh or say last month's soup news. Um and that was be would be for example the work of Sarah Parkak who uses the the very definition of remote sensing satellites in orbit to try and understand archaeological sites. She's not really stuff obsessed uh necessarily. Um she uses stuff to find stuff, but I suppose if we if we go too far with this with this uh um reference, it's going to it's going to just completely fall apart. But the point is she's trying to find archaeological sites using pictures. She's not collecting trinkets and she's not obsessed with what's been found on a particular site. She's very quickly moving from one photo to the next to try and identify archaeology. Um, another I suppose alternative would be uh landscape modelers. Uh, people who study the environment. If um if you are for example using pollen to understand how a whole landscape uh was in the past, okay, that is stuff. But you are by definition trying to understand the big picture. Uh a a batch of pollen. Not only is it not something which you can necessarily become totally obsessed with, although I do know some people who would be. Um but also as well, you you are usually trying to put that into a bigger story, a bigger picture. So that's that's certainly an archaeologist who's not stuff, you know, artifact obsessed. Um, people who try and model the environment often use, for example, things like ice cores, which unless you have a a deep uh a deep pocket, it's going to be very difficult to keep an ice core at home in the temperatures which are required. So again, there's an archaeologist who's who's probably a little less touched by stuff and therefore a little more pure perhaps in their in their thinking. Of course, I'm I'm I'm exaggerating slightly. And and also there are those who look at the psychology and the neuroscience of the past who yes, okay, they they they might be a bit obsessed with stuff because they have to study, for example, skulls and and brains and and the thinking of people uh which often revolves around stuff. But again, it's hard to or harder perhaps to just rely on one thing uh you know, one as I said, one ring, one trinket, one one treasure, one artifact. So the these are archaeologists and a way of ways of doing archaeology which don't rely and revolve around individual things, individual stuff. And and to be honest, I'm really scratching the barrel here. I'm really trying to to see the other side of the coin because because actually any good archaeologist, no matter how nice this stuff is, no matter how shiny and impressive this, for example, this Canon lens cover is um or or for example this uh this whales uh tea coaster is. Oh, it's never going to tell me the story of this particular office. All you know is that I have a camera and an affinity for whales at this point based on that evidence. And and if an archaeologist is in fact asking the right questions, it will be hard for them also to become stuff obsessed. As long as they're constantly asking uh why is the stuff here? What does it mean for the people who put it here? Um and also uh you know attendant questions about for example the environment and uh and the the buildings and you know so on so forth. Uh but this really I suppose brings me back to back to the main point and that is even though yes I've asked some questions here and I've sort of I suppose challenged some archaeologists about their their tendency to be a little bit stuff obsessed really by definition antiquarians are and can only really be obsessed with stuff and its value both intrinsic and also in terms of an old as an old object which often adds to the intrinsic value. Whereas an archaeologist um while they can lean towards being a bit stuff obsessed um should be should be asking about the people behind the stuff, the people underneath the stuff, the people um in fact incidental to the stuff as well. Sometimes um the stuff can be about can be about for example environment or can be about uh an activity which only hints at people and therefore actually they're desperately trying to claw their way to the people who are who are in the background of the stuff which has been found. So um so in many ways a very simple question to answer. No, definitely not. Antiquarianism is not archaeology. Um but it did lead to archaeology. And if you're and I suppose this is all about really if you whether or not you're asking the right questions of certain artifacts. Um one final one very final thought this just literally just popped into my head. It is possible of course to treasure something because someone owned it. So for example there are people who treasure uh locks of hair from famous people in history. Napoleon Bonapart for example. Um and you could say well that's that's antiquarianism and archaeology but again it's not it's not really a question which is or it's not really a sequence of questions which are trying to ascertain the circumstances of say Napoleon's life or the people in his society that is just yet again I suppose uh adding to the value of the stuff because it has a provenence and that is that is once again leaning towards being stuff obsessed. So that's just that's just popped in just now into my head. Um anyway guys, hopefully this has been uh an interesting answer to what might have seemed seemed to be a fairly very uh straightforward if not borderline uh daft question. But uh as as I do try to encourage people to realize there's no such thing as a daft question uh and even though I very nearly responded in a grumpy way, I'm really glad that I've actually taken the time to think about this one and uh indeed to share my thoughts with you. If you have any thoughts uh please do comment below. I'm sure that Ralph would love to read them as would I. And once again, thank you so much Ralph for sending in that question and I'm so pleased that I didn't just go because um well, no one likes a sour puss. And also, frankly, I would have regretted it because it is actually quite an interesting question once you think about it. Um so, as I say, thank you so much. As ever guys, until next time, whatever you're up to, do take care. Bye-bye. Heat. Heat. [Music]