>archeologists find something unusual >i-it was ceremonial!

>>1927090

tfw archeologists find your "ceremonial" dildo.

>>1927090
Archaeologists aren't historians.

>>1927119

they should be. doesnt it go hand in hand?

>>1927090

As a history major I agree, the amount of asinine extrapolation they do is insane.

>>1927129
No, if anything they're anthropologists.

>>1927129
Archaeology is beneficial to historians but so is linguistics, sociology and anthropology.

>>1927090
Archaeology isn't history, they're different fields. Archaeology isn't interested in historic particularities.

>>1927178

>Archaeology
>Literally digging up the past
>Isn't interested in historic particularities

You just went full retard.

>>1927096
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEX1u3W2oeA
Go to 24:00

>>1927192
You have no idea what you're even talking about.

>>1927210

Excellent example of a projection.
Do you have any more?

>>1927192
I'm an archaeology graduate. He's right. Archaeology and history are totally different things. Particular events are not really relevant to the field. If anything what we find archaeologically seriously shows the limitations of event-based history.

>>1927225
We can shitpost more about what greater field archaeology belongs to, but if you don't even know the basic difference between history and evolution then you won't really be able to respond with anything other than
>hurr durr your just projecting
which is really tiresome so I can't really promise that I'll take any more bait.

>>1927090
>This

It MIGHT

>This MIGHT have served this purpose because...

>It COULD'VE....

>We don't KNOW...

Pfffff... HAAHAHAHAHHAHAH

If an archaeologists finds an unusual artifact that serves no utilitarian purpose or which is deposited in a ritualistic way, they'll probably assume (with a degree of caution) that it has some sort of ritual, ceremonial or symbolic significance. If they have more evidence to work with, like other examples of similar objects or existing traditions which related to such objects, they'll use that to further theorize about the artifacts purpose and significance.

What are you even complaining about?

>>1927299
Historians are fucking hacks who clearly know fuck all about plenty of subjects just look at Vandals their supposed origin has absolutely no basis in any historical finds.

>>1927321
Are you talking about historians or archaeologists? Why do you think you know more about the Vandals than the people who've studied them and their origins? Is there something about the Vandals' origins that upsets you?

I do Roman provincial archaeology and of course it's a lot of history involved there, but we still do it as historians sometimes. At some point both fields can even merge together. The work itself is different, but once you excavate city borders, walls, graves, insulae, publish a catalogue etc., its up to us to publish the articles and put them within some context. To do it properly, its necessary to know all of the available historical sources, maps, previous findings and history of the region as well as speculations of both historians and archaeologists that tried to do the same thing. Best example is explaining presence of coinage or ceramics in place and time and political changes of the time that caused certain events and changes.

I'm aware what things are like in theory, but IRL it is really much different and there are many blurry lines, you're often left alone to simply deal with it, because not many other people even can. As an archaeologist you really have to do so many things at once actually. When it comes to ancient history, history is a helping tool of archaeology even though it is the opposite for other periods. Archaeology keeps disproving the ancient texts and sources over and over again, making them literally just a handy tool to pinpoint some locations loosely and predict the movements, roads etc. but that too keeps only that much accuracy. Without archaeology, our perception of life, dynamics, army, production etc. in the Roman period would be very much different. Still, history is invaluable for some other things that archaeology can't even touch and things it needs: religion, culture, historical data, names of people and places, origins etc.

>>1927338
Yes what upsets me is they pulled the ''they are from scandinavia'' out of their ass. They might as well say they were from fucking China.

>>1927425
Besides, archaeology is way more interesting and rewarding field. You can specialize in so many different things in archaeology and you can also find a job. Its an active history work, but I'll admit it gets exhausting and eventually you just wish you were back in a big city, clean and working in a museum. Just imagine walking back home all covered in mud after a long shift discussing the Roman expansion while everyone thinks you're a well educated construction worker.

>future archeologists find cinema rooms
>"it's clearly the chamber of some temple"
>they find action figures of comic book heroes
>"see, these figurines had religious significance in society and they were worshipped at those dark chambers"

>>1927439
Please. This only applies to prehistoric archaeology, its much more known about the later eras.

>>1927119
This
Look at how bad Lindy Beige is at history

>>1927441
t. historian

>>1927436
When the Vandals emerged Germanic languages were not spoken in China, they were spoken in Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland. Saying the came from Scandinavia is nothing like saying they come from China, it's a very likely possibility.

If you think there's something wrong with placing the Vandal's origins in Scandinavia, maybe you should read up on the reasons their origins are placed there, read up on any other arguments against that conclusion which might exist, and maybe put together a good argument that their origins weren't in Scandinavia or that the idea they come from Scandinavia is baseless.

>>1927439
You are too dumb to exist.

Making those figurines, especially those in Bronze, required hours of work and stress, I hope you're trolling.

In our times those figurines can be easily manufactured in industries, while back then figurines were a way to communicate with the gods, of course there's a difference between well made bronze/marble/ivory figurines and some terracotta dolls, but those are clear, either way archeologists would obviously see that it's not a temple but a cinema room, you dumb fuck.

Temples are classified as such because we find evidence of sacrifices there/ritual meals, altars, etc...

File: Ostia, Caseggiato del Termopolio 2.jpg (475KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1024x768px

>>1927439
>archaeologist finds a Roman tavern
>there's clear evidence that this is a tavern from Roman records, from the form of the room and from artifacts found inside the room
>archaeologists assume it's a tavern

See how this works?

In any case, we can't really use the term ceremonial in the modern sense when talking about the past. Most past cultures were not secular in the slightest, and the boundary between ceremonial and practical did not exist. A ritual space or artefact can have several functions aside from the ritual, and vice versa.

>>1927483
>Poland

you're fucking retarded

File: Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD).png (10KB, 537x376px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 537x376px

>>1927582
Is it so hard to do a google search you subhuman fuck.

I remember reading a book about the Indo-Europeans by Max Muller where he tries to date the Rig Veda.

>guys, WE DON'T KNOW THE DATE, alright?
>I'm going to try to do a very tentative and conservative estimation. okay?
>not even I think this is the correct date, we understand each other?

It becomes the official dating for an extended period of time in academia.

>>1927629
Dude

You're arguing with a retard from /int/

File: polack.jpg (4KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 259x194px

>>1927795
WE

WUZ

WHITE

AND SHIEET