Ancient and Archaeology permalink
80 treasurers
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Alphie09 (U14794268) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
can anyone tell me which episode (or treasure no) in the amazing series by Dan Cruckshank featured the preserved ancestors sitting on a platform on the side of a mountain. Needed for my sons art project
Thanks -
Message 2
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
episode 3, no 20
try these as well.
Hope this helps -
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
According to the wikipedia page for the series it was Number 20:
(close-up)
If you google "Tau Tau" you'll find plenty of images of these statues. -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
great minds, ferval ....
Alphie09 - I hope you realise that these are exquisite statues, but they're not preserved bodies! (just the way you phrased your question suggests you might have been mistaken) -
Message 5
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 3rd March 2011
I don't think these statues are ancient. Why do you call them exquisite?
-
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 3rd March 2011
To the best of my knowledge the rest of us english-speakers tend to adhere to the dictionary definition of "exquisite" and do not therefore conflate it with the definition of any other term that has anything to do with antiquity. You are of course free to take your own semantic stance, but I would suggest that people who obviously favour a rather personal and individual definition for a term that is generally understood to mean something else by the masses should be reticent in questioning or condemning those others for their acquiescence to consuetude.
Exquisite:
1. Characterized by intricate and beautiful design or execution
2. Of such beauty or delicacy as to arouse intense delight
A subjective application of aesthetics, admittedly, but a correct use of the term on my part - I respectfully submit. I cannot see how the age of the figures matters. -
Message 7
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 3rd March 2011
Nordmann, I was not suggesting that "exquisite" carries any meaning with regard to age. I mentioned that these things are not ancient, because we happen to be in an Ancient and Archaeology board. Then, in a separate sentence, (maybe I should have made it a separate paragraph) I queried as to why you call them exquisite. I am afraid I cannot see beautiful design, or delicacy in these things.
-
Message 8
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Thursday, 3rd March 2011
The subject of the statues is on this board because this is where the Original Poster chose to post his/her question.
-
Message 9
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 4th March 2011
Obviously; and I pointed out that these figures are not ancient, just in case people thought they were, which they might well do because of the title of this board.
-
Message 10
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 4th March 2011
They may not be ancient by whatever definition you're adopting, fascinating, but they are archaeological in that they are they are material remains. This discussion underlines the artificial distinction between the 'History' and 'Ancient and Archaeology' boards. The dear old Romans, who figure so much on this board fall, by definition, within the historical period, so should it only be their material culture that's discussed here and their documents discussed next door in History? Obviously that's a nonsense much as confining, say, the results of digs on World War 11 sites to this board would be.
There's a good argument, in my opinion for having one board - History and Archaeology - or if there must be two, History and Prehistory. Although History and Archaeology are different disciplines, in this setting the split is neither convenient nor really relevant. -
Message 11
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 4th March 2011
It would not be logical to have a board entitled "prehistory" under a "history" messageboard.
In the old boards about 5 years ago there was an Archaeology board but it was not used very much. It was logical to have a History Hub covering all aspects of written history, but also have another board incorporating archaeology but including discussions on those ancient cultures where archaeology forms a substantial part of the research into them, in addition to the written historical records. "Ancient" means very old, originally implying pre Middle Ages, so the dear old Romans are certainly relevant here.
If I am not wrong, these crude effigies are not older than 19th century and could actually be called 'modern', in historical terms. They have been mentioned on this board, so I thought it relevant to point out that they are not ancient, in case anybody is mislead. -
Message 12
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 4th March 2011
What, or cannot follow a hypertext link? So you'd like to let it be known that these figures fail to fit the remit of this board. On the taxonomic front they are comparatively recent so do not count as ancient history and were created by a modern society so should be considered as anthropology rather than archaeology. They also fail aesthetically judging by the derogatory tone of your post Raphaelite notion of what constitutes an acceptable form of sculpture, just so that nobody is mislead.
Given that the New Archaeology wanted to describe itself as the anthropology of past societies in contrast to the boring chronological and typological quibbles and attempts to track the development of architectural and artistic norms of western society that had dominated the early history of the discipline; the lack of an actual anthropology board not to mention the minor fact that the initial poster's query was answered in full, I really cannot see why they they should not ask about the Tautau figures on this forum. -
Message 13
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 4th March 2011
The hypertext links, if I recall correctly, are for entries about the episodes of the 80 treasures series; I was unable to find information within the links as to the date of the artefacts. I found the information and simply pointed it out.
Nordmann expressed his aesthetic opinion of them as exquisite. Why do you suggest that my own opinion of them as crude is not as valid? I don't no what you mean by post Raphaelite notion, I take it you are being derogatory.
So New Archaeology wants to describe itself as anthropology of past societies. Well I'll just wait for the Post-Modernist Archaeology and see how that wants to describe itself.
It is OK to ask about the tautau figures on this forum. It is also OK for anyone to point out the mere fact that these figures are not ancient, and all this quibbling about what I have said is getting boring. -
Message 14
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Post modern archaeology along with Post modern History has been around for decades now and might define itself with a rejection of meta-narratives and an acknowledgement that our interpretation of the past takes place in the present, with all the baggage that that implies, something that's been all to obvious in some of the recent posts on the History Hub.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óãtv iD
±«Óãtv navigation
±«Óãtv links
±«Óãtv © 2014 The ±«Óãtv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.