Disclaimer: I am feeling rather silly today – got to love that end of semester/runner’s high – so look out for some rather bold sarcasm!
Oh boy oh boy, I’m going to do a post on death and archaeology today!
 |
| I'm assuming this is one of those "buildings" discussed in such great detail |
Just a few days ago was a Roman cemetery site uncovered underneath St Dunstans St. in Canterbury UK. I thought it would be interesting for this post to compare a popular media source’s interpretation and discussion of the site with a more "academic" media source’s perspective. For your sake, I hope I’m right and don’t bore you to tears!
The first article is from an unspecialized web/news site called “Digital Journal,” and is entitled Archaeologists Unearth 150 Roman Graves in Canterbury. The article describes both the contemporary history of how the site was found as well as a more in depth history as to its origins. The article goes on to explain a few archaeological aspects of the sites, such as the fact that all the bodies were facing East-West indicating Christendom. The article concludes with a statement given by a member of the research team emphasizing the difficulty of completing an excavation to its fullest potential.1
The second article, from a site called “Archaeology Daily News” wrote a brief article on the same site entitled Roman Graves Uncovered in Canterbury.
(Not going to lie, the first article’s usage of quantity makes it sound more interesting!)
The statements made in the article are more or less identical to the first one, but they present their interpretations as possibilities rather than as fact.2
I found it absolutely hilarious that an article contained within an archaeology webpage used REALLY generic terms such as “buildings” rather than giving ANY detail as to what types of buildings they were. I also laughed when I read one of the quotes – made by the site director – the second article decided to include:
"It is not surprising that we have found a cemetery here as it is just outside the outskirts of the Roman town,"
[sarcasm] WOW! What an incredibly informative quote; as we learned in my last post, a cemetery is outside a town, and what do you know, a cemetery was found outside a known town!?!?! What a concept. Thank you, Mr. Site Director Bennett for explaining why I should not be surprised [/sarcasm] I think they were just trying to fill up the page.
I think that I have reached a conclusion on the legitimacy of an “archaeology” news site:
Although the tone is slightly more formal, the terminology, level of depth, and even detail is equivalent to that of a general news forum. I therefore conclude that forums such as these are made to make members of the general public who went to a museum once feel smart.
References
Pictures
1. http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/fotos/image6307_b.jpg
2. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirATLIs-jZsT7vUv3u1NDgl7JljiQQ8IIe1ymZRU-89XzbJJCZR0_v8eC-UKLZa-J12eFuXoGbEcuYAgvPnF_X5pIqS3uETre4vZOCLtJI43z0ITktSmL2USXFfQ7S1lZxNPJWe-wck9k/s1600/archaeology.gif
No comments:
Post a Comment