S. Golubovic et al. (eds), Limes XXIIII. Proceedings of the 24 th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Serbia 2018, 2023
Present day archaeologists encounter relatively often the situation where the site that they are ... more Present day archaeologists encounter relatively often the situation where the site that they are excavating has been investigated before them in one way or another by archaeologists in the past. Sometimes these predecessors have been investigating the site quite a long time ago, possibly 70, 100 years ago or even longer than that. It is thus not surprising that the past researchers used quite different investigation methods than the ones of today. Even quite basic excavation and interpretation methods like stratigraphical digging or providing the scale and orientation in the archaeological drawing and photography were not a given-at least not everywhere in the world-say 100 years ago. Similar issues arise when it comes to written archaeological report in the past. From the terms used for describing the excavation technique to the ones for the uncovered archaeological features, the wording of some old reports can sometimes be puzzling or even misleading. The purpose of my paper is to examine the relation of a modern-day archaeologist to his predecessors, the scientific gains, but also the hurdles of this relation. I base in this approach mainly on my own experiences, that I'm presenting as two case studies. First case study is based on my reading of the well known volumes Der obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches, that were published between 1894-1937. Second case study encompasses my experience as the leader of excavations in the auxiliary fort from Vărădia, in the southwest of Roman Dacia (in nowadays Romania), where at least two predecessors have excavated-one of them (Felix Milleker) more than 100 years ago, the other one (Grigore Florescu) approximately 80 years ago-and then reported about their research. It turned out that in these cases too there are essential differences in methods and terms between our predecessors and our times. This however doesn't rend the old excavations and reports useless, even as the earlier researchers could see structures and aspects that are physically not visible anymore today.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Eduard Nemeth
Papers by Eduard Nemeth
Abstract: The information about the province of Dacia during the time of
the emperor Elagabalus is extremely scarce, apart from one inscription (possibly two inscriptions) we know nothing specific, not even the name of the governor of the province between the years 218-222 appears in any preserved ancient literary or epigraphical source.
Abstract: The information about the province of Dacia during the time of
the emperor Elagabalus is extremely scarce, apart from one inscription (possibly two inscriptions) we know nothing specific, not even the name of the governor of the province between the years 218-222 appears in any preserved ancient literary or epigraphical source.
Zusammenfassung
Der Aufsatz präsentiert zwei Antefixe die 1969 im Legionslager Berzobis
(Berzovia, Kr. Caraş-Severin) entdeckt wurden. Die Funde haben keine
Formanalogien im römischen Dakien, was zur Annahme führt, dass diese Art von Dachelementen in einer lokalen Figlina und mit örtlich hergestellten Druckformen erzeugt wurden. Das Antefix von Abb. 2 stellt höchstwahrscheinlich die Gorgo-Medusa dar (weit geöffnete Augen, auf der Stirn hăngende Haare), wăhrend das Stück von der Abb. 1 vermutlich einfach eine dekorative Funktion erfüllte.