Archaeological Culture and Prehistory (a case study)

The prehistoric archaeology is one of the most important disciplines to learn about evolution of human society. It provides primary evidence of when and how people began to create and reproduce households, to develop successful strategies for healthy life and to create the wonderful human culture as a synthesis of beauty, interactions with nature and human creativity.

One of the basic categories of prehistoric archaeology is archaeological culture. This is a regional term since the archaeological culture encompasses similar and identical material culture over a specific region during a specific period. The sites can be compact (the typical case) or spread over vast region (e.g. Pit Grave Culture). Archaeological culture requires a diachronic connectivity and presumes territorial connectivity although there are exceptions. As a rule, inner migrations result in a change of the material culture style, so one and the same population can be a barrier of different cultures. It is also presumed in prehistory that identical or very similar culture means a population with one and the same social identity that can be also named ethnicity.
Defining an archaeological culture is a primary and extremely huge responsibility of the professional archaeologists. From global perspectives it is accepted that the local archaeologists have competence and enough academic education for correct recognition of the different archaeological cultures. Although usually based on replication and updates, defining new archaeological culture nowadays means in some cases a new scientific knowledge. However, some “new” cultures unfortunately create theoretical and ethical problems in the contemporary prehistoric archaeology.
One of the lines of scholarly misconducts in prehistoric archaeology is rediscovering or renaming of well-known archaeological cultures. Typical instance is the case with Galatin in historiography: a well known culture (Salcuta IV or Salcuta IV – Telish IV, or Salcuta – Telish) was renamed Galatin by P. Georgieva in her contradicting PhD thesis in later 20th century (see the cited literature by P. Georgieva in Nikolova 1999). There was no single argument for such renaming.
Salcuta IV was first discovered in Oltenia and most data still come from Romania. In Bulgaria the only site with rich settlement and pottery information was Telish, while Galatin provided handful well known from the other sites shards without any stratigraphic context. During the battle of culture naming there was even a rumor that Georgieva imported Sheibenhenkel shards from Telish to make “her culture” more impressive. Curiously, it is a fact that the initial excavations of Galatin conducted by B. Nikolov and H. Todorova did not report Scheibenhenkel shards. On top of everything, as a student P. Georgieva tried to mislead the director of a summer excavation that there was an artifact discovered in a grave of Pit Grave Culture. It was put by her under the head of the buried although with inventory number. Such joke was out of understanding of all other students who accepted the excavations as a scientific laboratory and not a place of game-like practicing of fraud.
Salcuta IV (or Salcuta – Telish) is organically connected with Central Europe, so Northwest Bulgaria is just a periphery of this culture, which is of primary importance for understanding the Final Copper Age period in the Balkans (among the new literature online about Salcuta and Bodrogkeresztur see Luca, Roman & Diaconescu (online), Patroi (online), Thomas (2007-2009)).
Curiously, instead following the scientific line of Balkan prehistoric research, new authors, without proved long-term and in depth knowledge on the region, replicated non-scholarly line of research. Recently, I. Merkyte included Galatin in a complicated chronological table, without any explanation why was chose Galatin. Such accumulation of mistakes creates layers of difficulties to understand Balkan prehistoric archaeology, which is important for so many crossing prehistoric and other humanitarian disciplines. Luckily, after the popular rediscoveries of cultures in Northeast Bulgaria by H. Todorova in later 20th century who had used the Romanian scientific contributions for building cultures and schemes named as “new for science”, Galatin is a rare instance of theoretical misconduct on Balkan prehistory in which usually work serious and respectful archaeologists.
The chronological scheme of I. Merkyte in her 2005 publication also poses other essential questions: How can the replication of mistakes create a long diachronic line of misunderstanding of Balkan prehistory? For instance, it is stated that Sitagroi IV is synchronous with “Galatin” while there are serious in depth researches that clearly show that Sitagroi IV is a typical Early Bronze Age multilevel village founded over the prehistoric mound that followed Salcuta IV – Telish IV. In addition, there is a series of extensive researches that clearly shows that in light of present evidence Early Bronze Age began abt 3600 and there is no Transition period – a term introduced by S. Morintz and P. Roman in considerably early stage of modern understanding of Balkan prehistory. In late 1960s were missing so many rich excavations from different parts of this region that later showed not only continuity in the development of the cultural process but also the mechanism of the cultural and social transformations in later Balkan prehistory. Salcuta IV – Telish IV (or just Salcuta – Telish) is a stage of the Final Copper transformation of the Balkans that included intensive interactions with Central Europe and graduate increasing of this line of contacts together with steppe contacts and possible multidirectional ethnical migrations.
The main fault of the Bulgarian variant of Transition period adopted by H. Todorova is that it ignored the Central European line of interactions and described the changes of the material culture as one direction invasion from the Russian steppe. This hybrid thesis that combined the Romanian term Transition period with the popular Gumbutas’ invasion theory has one of the biggest negative impacts on Balkan prehistory in later 20th century which extension is also the renaming of well-known and well-researched culture Salcuta IV (or Salcuta – Telish). According to online information, Gimbutas – Bulgarian model was replicated in a dissertation by I. Merkyte and also posed a very serious academic question: If a new archaeological material (like Liga and Ezero-Kale) is not a base for a new scientific conclusions by the author, should this material be defended as a PhD dissertation? What is in fact the scientific meaning of the PhD dissertation in archaeology – new theoretical knowledge or applied replicated knowledge? It is really pity in case with Liga, since the publication of the site (Merkyte 2005) shows a very rich material that could be a base for new brilliant scientific theses if it is analyzed in depth. As a matter of fact, as the identical dissertation by P. Georgieva showed in Bulgaria, it is impossible to resolve the problems of transition from late Copper Age to the Final Copper Age and from the Final Copper Age to Early Bronze Age base on limited regional case studies. Only broad regional comparative analyses provide relevant scholarly conclusions (see Nikolova 1999).
The prehistoric chronological scheme is a primary research tool for expression of scholarly knowledge. However, from archaeological perspectives, they need to be well-argued in the text since seeing mixed chronologically cultures or unreasonable renaming create the impression of absence of deep and professional knowledge.

                                                                        From a Case Study by  Lolita Nikolova
Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab 
Archaeology Grad Student, Deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
Jahangirnagar University .
Bangladesh .

Testimony of Cultural Heritage in Archaeology

No doubt we are very familiar  with the term of cultural Heritage specially in the notion of Archaeology or the study of past human behavioral pattern with the material remains left by thee. To start with, however, a reference to the concept of ‘culture’ which has been studied by anthropologists. It may be useful to begin with the definition of ‘culture’ by Edward Burnett Tylor in
his Primitive Culture (1871): Culture … is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. With the development of anthropological science, the definition has gradually become more complex. In 1952, U.S. anthropologists, A.L. Kroeber and C. Kluckhohn cited 164 definitions of culture, including for example: “learned behavior”, “ideas in the mind”, “a logical construct”, “a statistical fiction”, “a psychic defence mechanism”; more recently, they have favored to define ‘culture’ as “an abstraction from behavior”. (See: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, vol. 8, 1151 ff)

UNESCO has defined ‘cultural heritage’ in its Draft Medium Term Plan 1990-1995 (UNESCO, 25 C/4, 1989, p.57),In addition it has seemed useful to reproduce more extensively the account on UNESCO’s policies for the current mid term period, considering that much of it seems to be directly relevant also to ICCROM’s activities: Programme III, 2: Preservation and Revival of the Cultural Heritage Background The cultural heritage may be defined as the entire corpus of material signs – either artistic or symbolic – handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of humankind. As a constituent part of the affirmation and enrichment of cultural identities, as a legacy belonging to all humankind, the cultural heritage gives each particular place its recognizable features and is the storehouse of human experience. The preservation and the presentation of the cultural heritage are therefore a corner-stone of any cultural policy. This is one of the fields where UNESCO’s action has been particularly appreciated and noted, as regards both its standard-setting aspects and the major preservation and safeguarding campaigns. In this way it has helped to gain worldwide recognition of the very idea of the heritage, which, at the same time, has been broadened and extended. The cultural heritage should be considered both in time and in space. First, it no longer stops at the dawn of the nineteenth century but now also embraces the records left behind by the twentieth century. Second, the aim is not only to preserve increasingly numerous items of cultural property but also to safeguard complexes which go far beyond single large monuments or individual buildings. The idea of the heritage has now been broadened to include both the human and the natural environment, both architectural complexes and archaeological sites, not only the rural heritage and the countryside but also the urban, technical or industrial heritage, industrial design and street furniture. Furthermore, the preservation of the cultural heritage now covers the non-physical cultural heritage, which includes the signs and symbols passed on by oral transmission, artistic and literary forms of expression, languages, ways of life, myths, beliefs and rituals, value systems and traditional knowledge and know-how. The situation of the cultural heritage has deteriorated during recent years as a result of industrialization, rapid urbanization, the increase in atmospheric pollution, various climatic factors and mass tourism. In addition, many examples of the non-physical heritage are dying out because of the disruption of economic structures and rapid changes in life-styles. As a result, public awareness of the value of the cultural heritage has increased. This is particularly evident in the growing number of people who, in many countries, visit buildings and architectural complexes which make up the essential part of the heritage. The vitality of associations established to defend the heritage, and also the increased interest in the non-physical heritage, reflect the new life and cultural development. In general terms, through their impact on economic activity and tourism, policies regarding the cultural heritage make an effective contribution to development. However, the widened connotation of the idea of the cultural heritage provides a challenge for national and international action which it is providing increasingly difficult to meet. The crisis in public finance, austerity measures or policies of structural adjustment have frequently limited the capacity of Member States (particularly the developing countries) to take action. Yet the safeguarding of one of the major assets of a ‘multidimensional’ type of development which will ensure the best possible general living conditions for both present and future generations. Many Member States have been led to the same conclusion: the need to provide substantially increased resources to preserve the cultural heritage, and to adopt the functions of the heritage so as to incorporate it in the human and natural environment and the living culture of the community. A majority of Member States have therefore turned towards UNESCO: between 1984 and 1988, 30 States became parties to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), 12 States acceded to the Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property (1970) and four to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954). One hundred and eight States are now parties to the 1972 Convention, which, as a result, is rapidly progressing towards achieving truly universal implementation. In addition, the increase in the number of international safeguarding campaigns which Member States have requested UNESCO to launch is evidence at one and the same time of the determination of governments to undertake the major works necessary for the preservation of the heritage, of the considerable scale of existing needs and of the trust placed in the Organization to help to respond to these needs. However, the area covered by the programme for the preservation of the immovable cultural heritage has increased to such an extent during the last 20 years that it now calls for far greater resources than are available to UNESCO on its own. With regard to the non-physical heritage, the place given to methodological studies has been gradually reduced in favour of practical activities to collect material on traditions. Priority has been given to the recording of traditional cultural events and of languages which are dying out. Objectives and Strategy This programme’s strategy will correspond to four objectives: – improved understanding of the cultural heritage, especially the non-physical heritage; – more effective preservation; – better incorporation of the cultural heritage in present-day cultural life, creative activity and the economic and social world; – greater accessibility to the public. These objectives coincide fully with those of the World Decade for Cultural Development, and especially with the second and third objectives of its Plan of Action. In addition, the activities proposed take due account of the need to link preservation of the cultural heritage more closely with other fields of cultural action, such as contemporary architecture, urbanization and town planning, science and technology, protection of the environment, education and communication. Thus intersectoral co-operation and co-ordination in respect of the cultural heritage will be strengthened, as also co-operation with National Commissions. With regard to the physical heritage, UNESCO’s standard-setting activities will be aimed primarily at promoting wider and more effective application of UNESCO conventions and UNESCO recommendations to Member States concerning its preservation. As regards the preservation of the physical cultural heritage, UNESCO’s strategy will be redesigned to take into account the full extent of the funding required and to adjust the Organization’s objectives and resources. As for international safeguarding campaigns, the General Conference, at its twenty-fourth session, adopted both a strategy for the development process. A realistic revision of  UNESCO’s methods of action in this field should lead to UNESCO’s defining priorities for operational action and preparing a plan of action accompanied by financial estimates and detailed timetables. The activities might be spread over the three stages of the Plan. Training will be focused on the teaching of modern safeguarding methods and techniques and on their practical application to preservation work carried out on selected historical buildings or in museums. These activities will thus be accompanied by direct assistance to Member States. Co-operation with National Commissions and international governmental and non-governmental organizations will be expanded with a view to finding partners in the work of intensifying promotional and public awareness activities exchanging the experience and specialized information, and implementing technical co-operation projects. The dissemination of scientific and technical information will benefit from the expansion of computerized documentation networks, and this will strengthen the role of the Organization as a clearing-house. As regards the non-physical heritage, UNESCO will act as a stimulus and co-ordinator by launching a project for the collection and dissemination of oral traditions, making use of the most up-to-date audio-visual media. This project comes within the context of the World Decade for Cultural Development, one of whose priority goals is not only that of preserving the heritage, but also of enriching and renewing. UNESCO will actively pursue the tasks connected with the worldwide application of the three conventions and ten recommendations to Member States concerning the protection and enhancement of the physical cultural heritage. The other activities will correspond to the following priorities: encouraging an integrated interdisciplinary approach to the preservation of the architectural heritage in rural and urban areas; promoting emergency preservation and archaeological rescue operations, namely action aimed at studying and preserving the traces of the heritage before they art destroyed by major public works. The Organization will pay particular attention to implementation of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; it will assist the World Heritage Committee in identifying new sites, supervising the conservation of all the sites protected under the Convention and carrying out technical assistance projects. Evaluation of three international safeguarding campaigns will be carried out during the first stage of the Plan. The following principles might also be adopted: no new campaign will be launched during the period covered by the Plan; during each of the three stages of the Plan, efforts will be concentrated on two campaigns which will be completed within reasonable periods of time; with a view to supporting as many ongoing campaigns as possible, the Organization will seek extra-budgetary public and private resources, and will in particular call upon the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). From the first stage of the Plan onwards, activities will be undertaken for the training of group leaders with a view to improving the supervision and organization of international heritage work sites for young volunteers. Information and promotional activities will be undertaken to heighten the awareness of decision-makers and the public at large of the importance of the physical cultural heritage and of the extent of the human and financial resources that need to be mobilized to protect it. The dissemination of technical information and exchanges between specialists in this area will be encouraged. The journal Museum will continue to be published. All the activities concerning the safeguarding of the physical cultural heritage or the development of museums will be planned and undertaken in close co-operation with competent international governmental and non-governmental organizations. The activities concerning the non-physical cultural heritage will be geared to the collection and safeguarding, in the different Geo-cultural areas, of various cultural traditions mainly grouped around the theme ‘the stages of life. UNESCO will also promote the collection, recording and preservation of languages that are dying out, in close co-operation with organizations and institutions already active in this field (constitution of a sound bank). In addition, with a view to encouraging the revival of languages which are dying out, arrangements will be made to hold seminars and workshops, produce recordings and disseminate language cassettes; encouragement will be given to the development of rural sound libraries, in which the local population will play a leading role. The project for the revival of the Nahuatl language will be continued in the context of the World Decade for Cultural Development.

Database collected from 

                        ICCROM Working Group ‘Heritage and Society’ 

Md. Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab
Archaeology Grad student ,deconstractive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist
Jahangirnagar University

Satellite Remote Sensing and Survey Archaeology

As the field of archaeological remote sensing is still relatively young, it is prone to
trial and error, especially when applying methodologies in the field. This is where the
recording part of the ground survey becomes so critical

. Many parts of the world are
undeserved by existing remote sensing work; and even less so with the applied remote
sensing work required for archaeology. Hence, any attempts at analytical remote sensing
methods may be devoid of any local reference points.
Worldwide, in general, each region and sub-region will pose problems for remote
sensing and archaeological survey work due to the nature of satellite imagery analysis.
Here it is essential to know what satellites can and cannot detect (e.g. ancient canals
or buried walls). Paying close attention to the additional factors affecting recording can
help with initial survey work. Developing specific survey forms for each region is crucial
, and will be discussed in detail in this chapter. Each team can adapt such
survey forms to their own needs, but the suggested format provides a good starting point
already tested during a number of remote sensing ground survey seasons in floodplain
environments in Egypt.
Cost–benefit analysis should be central to any discussion of how remote sensing can
aid regular survey. How much can a single survey gain from using remote sensing as
opposed to a regular foot survey? This author’s own research in Middle Egypt furnished
one example. It is important to demonstrate the specific advantages and disadvantages
of incorporating satellite imagery over a sole reliance on traditional survey techniques.
Thirty-five years ago, before the adoption of satellite remote sensing in general, one
would need to compile lists of known archaeological sites in the survey areas and place
them onto modern maps. In the case of the current study, the parameters for choosing
the survey area included selecting Middle Egypt because it remained mostly poorly
studied from the perspective of analyzing settlement patterns through time (Kemp
2005). Instead of evaluating satellite remote sensing techniques, one can test more
general ground surveying techniques: Pacing set distances such as 100 m transects, or
randomly choosing areas (quadrants) for more intensive searching. Even using aerial
photographs, many surface sites could not be located, being buried beneath modern
towns and villages. For the sake of direct comparison, in this hypothetical study only
one person would be responsible for locating the sites, accompanied by an Egyptian
inspector from the Supreme Council for Antiquities (SCA), a driver and a policeman 

In initiating foot surveys without the benefit of pre-selected target sites, one immediately
runs into various problems. For example, approaching a surface survey of Middle
Egypt, one is faced with a former floodplain region characterized by a vast area of rice,
cotton, and sugarcane cultivation . The first question is where should one  begin? In regards 
to security issues, any current archaeological survey team would be permitted to visit only 
six places in one day and must tell the police exactly where they
are going 24 hours in advance. The study area in Middle Egypt spans 15 × 30 km,
much of which is inaccessible to field walking since large tracts of cultivation often lie
beneath water. Furthermore, one cannot walk in fields without obtaining each owner’s
permission, while parasites in irrigation water offer serious health hazards. Navigation
problems arise through the numerous canals and channels obstructing potential walking
routes. This leaves main and secondary road connecting towns and villages for the actual
survey route.
Other problems arise. Where would a traditional survey team look for sites in modern
towns and what would they hope to find? A number of modern settlements in Middle
Egypt are large enough to represent small cities. 

Historical Background of the most popular song all over the world

                      Birthday in one word amusing and one of the most expected day for anyone’s life. The party, celebration, amusement or huge gathering whatever you like. The person anyone can wish you long life as well anyhow. When come under verses no way but the famous song has to sing or recite out “Happy Birthday to you”!!!!! . That is the song that we all know it has to be the classical motive indeed. We sing it each year as a common perspective or became a regulation in the celebration of Birthday .Has also been translated to various languages making it a universal song. As student of Archeology and very kin to past research I am feeling interest in searching the historical background of this famous song. I think it at first that this not a matter of a single day or year to emerged it all over the world. It takes time to be more and more popular among the people of different place, race, religion, ideology, thinking and language all over the world. According to the Guinness Book of World Records the “Happy Birthday to You” song is the most popular song ever in the English speaking world. Surprisingly this song   still sung with the English lyrics in non-English speaking countries with a classical entity started  from the very beginning as it has been translated into almost each and every language used all over the world.

When try to find out the historical background of these song have to remember  the names of  two sister – Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill  with great homage . Mildred J. Hill was born in June 27, 1859 at   Kentucky of  Louisville of USA that is well known as the birth place of the famous boxer Mohammad Ali and died in Chicago, in 1916  buried  in Louisville, Kentucky was the oldest of three sisters, Mildred, Patty, and Jessica.  Patty Smith Hill was born at the same place in 27 March 1868 and died 25 May 1946 in New York.  She is buried with her sister in  cave hill cemetery  in Louisville, Kentucky. Both of them learned music and singing from her father Mr. Calvin Cody. Mildred J. Hill started her career as a kindergarten  and Sunday school teacher , like her younger sister co author of these famous song Patty Smith Hill. She moved into music, teaching, composing, performing, and specializing in the study of  Negro spirituals  amongst with her sister. For these shorts of extra ordinary activity with good teaching Hill and her sister were honored at the Chicago World’s Fair Chicago World’s Fair for their work in the progressive education program at the experimental kindergarten, the Louisville Experimental Kindergarten School.
While teaching at the Louisville Experimental Kindergarten School, they wrote the song “Good Morning to All”.  Mildred wrote the melody as well as Patty the lyrics. The song was first published in 1893 in Song Stories for the Kindergarten as a greeting song for teachers to sing to their students. From then on the lyrics were changed from its original form to “Good Morning to You” and then to “Happy Birthday to You.” It is still unclear who changed the lyrics that turned it into a birthday song, but it was first published in 1924 on a book edited by Robert H. Coleman. Since then, the song became popular and in 1934. The Hill family was not happy that others were making millions out of their inspiration without any compensation or recognition.
As a result, they brought several claims against alleged perpetrators, and in 1934 Jessica Hill, another Hill sister, won a historic lawsuit for infringement proceeded to also register the “Happy Birthday to You” copyright in 1935.  Jessica, who was working with the publisher Clayton        F. Summy Company copyrighted the song in the version we know today, following an arrangement by Preston Ware Orem. That right is scheduled to expire in 2030. This was the first copyright version of “Happy Birthday to You” according to the lyrics of Good morning written by Hill sisters.  It was still debatable whether the lyrics of “Good Morning to All” and “Happy Birthday to You” were the same — legally speaking. Well, the long and short of it is that they are identical. Later in 1990, another company Warner Chappell bought the company holding the “Happy Birthday to You” copyright for $15 million. “Happy Birthday to You” itself was estimated to cost $6 million. Ever since, Warner has claimed that there can be no public performance of the song anywhere in the world except when they are paid adequate royalties. 
No doubt birthday is a momentous occasion, to be commemorated just as a nation commemorates its birth or as an organization celebrates its founding. Still, it is much more than an occasion to receive gifts. It is a chance to remember the day that a major event occurred, to celebrate and give thanks and to reflect upon how well we are fulfilling aim as the duties for ourselves, others for my country as well as humankind. However for centuries people all over the world celebrate their birthdays with the song “Happy Birthday to You” as they keep in mind it’s author two sisters in mind inspired for new creation for humanity that is good for all is good forever.

                                                        © aurnab arc

 Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab 

Archaeology grad Student,deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
Jahangirnagar University.

First step on Archaeological research !!!!! What is our thinking ???

            In single word what is Archaeology? We can answer easily the study of our ancestors through objects that is material remains left by the then people produced by their subsidiary task. But
if someone ask us about the history of Archaeology . It seems just like jigsaw puzzle that never been solved . Because of the politics of knowledge as well as nationalistic thinking related to it . However I like to mention that it started when the people started to unearthed the material remains of their ancestors in a systematic way as well as the research. The history of archaeology is a long and checkered one. If there is anything archaeology teaches us, it is to look to the past to learn from our mistakes and, if we can find any, our successes. What we today think of as the science of archaeology has its roots in religion and treasure hunting, and born out of centuries of curiosity about the past and where we all came from. The first tentative step forward towards archaeology as a science took place during the Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason. Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries was a time of great growth in scientific and natural exploration, and it was a crucial leap forward in the history of archaeology.

The exact origins of archaeology as a disciplined study are uncertain. Excavations of ancient monuments and the collection of antiquities have been taking place for thousands of years. The terms “excavations” ond “collection” can, however, cover a multitude of scenarios. In ancient times the Tombs of the Pharoahs of Egypt were looted by grave robbers who probably hoped for financial gain through sale of their plunder.
We can contrast this with the endeavors of the Italian Renaissance humanist historian, Flavio Biondo, who created a systematic and documented guide to the ruins and topography of ancient Rome in the early 15th century.
                        Flavio Biondo, is seen by posterity a candidate for consideration as an early founder of archaeology. He was a man of his times, Renaissance means rebirth and the rebirth those involved in the Renaissance hoped for was the rebirth of Human Achievement such as the ancients of the Classical Age of Greece and Rome had been capable of. Thus Biondo was inclined to treat the ruins and topography of ancient Rome with great respect.

Such excavations and investigations as took place over ensuing centuries tended to be haphazard; the importance of concepts such as stratification and context were usually completely overlooked. King Charles of the Two Sicilies employed Marcello Venuti, an antiquities expert in 1738, to excavate by methodical approach, the ancient city of Herculaneum. This first supervised excavation of an archaeological site was likely the birth of modern archaeology. In America, Thomas Jefferson, as he reported in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” by Jefferson (completed in 1781), supervised the systematic excavation of an Native American burial mound on his land in Virginia in 1781, (or perhaps slightly earlier). Although Jefferson’s investigative methods were ahead of his time (and have earned him the nickname from some of the “father of archaeology”), they were primitive by today’s standards. He did not simply dig down into the mound in the hope of “finding something”; he cut a wedge out of it in order to examine the stratigraphy. The results did not inspire his contemporaries to do likewise, and they generally continued to hack away indiscriminately at the deposited remains of ancient settlements, – ( aka “tell” sites), in the Middle East, at barrows and tumuli in Europe, and at ancient mounds in North America, destroying valuable archaeological material in the process.

In 1801, an army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte was deployed in an Egyptian campaign. Napoleon brought some five hundred civilian scientists, specialists in fields such as biology, chemistry and languages, in order to carry out a full study of the ancient civilizations of Egypt. In these times some soldiers rebuilding a fort discovered an unusual stone on which ancient scripts were engraved. This stone, known to posterity as the Rosetta Stone, caused great excitement amongst the scholars attached to Napoleon’s army.
Several decades later the work of Jean-Francois Champollion in deciphering the Rosetta stone led to the discovery of the hidden meaning of hieroglyphics. This discovery proved to be the key to the study of Egyptology. It has since become a celebrated and prolific branch of classical archaeology because of the amount and quality of material that have been well preserved in the dry Egyptian climate,

In 1803, there was widespread criticism of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin for removing the “Elgin Marbles” from their original location as a frieze on the Parthenon in Athens. Back in England these marble sculptures themselves tended to be valued, even by his critics, only for their aesthetic qualities, not for the information they might yield about Greek civilisation.

It was only as the 19th century continued, however, that the systematic study of the past through its physical remains began to be carried out in a manner recognisable to modern students of archaeology.
Richard Colt-Hoare (1758-1838) turned his attention to recording the past of the countryside surrounding his estate at Stourhead in Wiltshire which he published in a book entitled Ancient Historie of Wiltshire in 1812.
In his reporting of his investigations and ecavations of such neolithic barrows as Silbury Hill used terminology that was later adopted by other archaeologists. Colt-Hoare made meticulous recordings of his discoveries and preferred to use a trowel for careful excavation.

Archaeology was continued as an amateur pastime pursued, in later years, by persons such as Augustus Pitt-Rivers who collected many artifacts during his early career as a colonial soldier to which he added further finds from a large estate he had inherited complete with numerous prehistoric features. Pitt-Rivers extensive personal collection of artifacts was used by him to develop a typology scheme for dating archaeological remains. The Pitt-Rivers collection forms the nucleus of a museum named after him, in Oxford.
Archaeological digging
                                                                                                                                                         Brushing and cleaning artifact 

                               William Flinders Petrie is another man who may legitimately be called the Father of Archaeology. His work in Egypt developed the concept of seriation, which permitted accurate dating long before scientific methods were available to corroborate his chronologies. He was also a meticulous excavator and scrupulous record keeper and laid down many of the ideas behind modern archaeological recording.

The next major figure in the development of archaeology in the UK was Mortimer Wheeler, whose highly disciplined approach to excavation and systematic coverage of much of Great Britain in the 1920s and 1930s brought the science on swiftly. It was not until the introduction of modern technology from the 1950s onwards that a similar leap forward would be made in field archaeology. Wheeler’s method of excavation, laying out the site on a grid pattern, though gradually abandoned in favour of the open-area method, still forms the basis of excavation technique.

Meanwhile, the work of Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos in Crete had shed light on the Minoan civilisation. Many of the finds from this site were catalogued and brought to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, where they could be studied by classicists, while an attempt was made to reconstruct much of the original site. Although this was done in a manner that would be considered inappropriate today, it helped raise the profile of archaeology considerably.

Archaeology was increasingly becoming a professional activity. Although the bulk of an excavation’s workforce would still consist of volunteers, it would normally be led by a professional. It was now possible to study archaeology as a subject in universities and even schools, and by the end of the 20th century nearly all professional archaeologists, at least in developed countries, were graduates.

Undoubtedly the major technological development in 20th century archaeology was the introduction of radiocarbon dating, based on a theory first developed by American scientist Willard Libby in 1949. Despite its many limitations (compared to later methods it is inaccurate; it can only be used on organic matter; it is reliant on a dataset to corroborate it; and it only works with remains from the last 10,000 years), the technique brought about a revolution in archaeological understanding. For the first time, it was possible to put reasonably accurate dates on discoveries such as bones. Other developments, often spin-offs from wartime technology, led to other scientific advances. For field archaeologists, the most significant of these was the use of the geophysical survey, enabling an advance picture to be built up of what lies beneath the soil, before excavation even commences. The entire Roman town of Viroconium, modern day Wroxeter in England, has been surveyed by these methods, though only a small portion has actually been excavated.

                        Archaeology as a scientific study is only about 150 years old. Interest in the past, however, is much older than that. If you stretch the definition enough, probably the earliest probe into the past was during New Kingdom Egypt [1550-1070 BC], when the pharaohs excavated and reconstructed the Sphinx, built during the 4th Dynasty [Old Kingdom, 2575-2134 BC] for the Pharaoh Khafre. There are no written records to support the excavation, but physical evidence of the reconstruction exists, and there are ivory carvings from earlier periods that indicate the Sphinx was buried in sand up to its head and shoulders before the New Kingdom excavations.
Tradition has it that the first recorded archaeological dig was operated by Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon who ruled between 555-539 BC. Nabonidus’ contribution to the science of the past is the unearthing of the foundation stone of a building dedicated to Naram-Sin, the grandson of Sargon. Nabonidus overestimated the age of the building foundation by 1500 years, but, heck, it was the middle of the 6 century BC: there were no radiocarbon dates. Nabonidus was, frankly, deranged (an object lesson for many an archaeologist of the present), and Babylon was eventually conquered by Cyrus the Great, founder ofPersepolis and the Persian empire.
                                                       © aurnab arc
 Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab 
Archaeology grad Student,deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
Jahangirnagar University.

“Necrophilia” a vicious sexual practice since the ancient Egyptian and American civilization .

Like other days at evening after taking a cup of tea I started browsing internet. In a Bangladeshi blog somewherein by name I found a nice article on a wicked topic “Necrophilia
” As I read it before in a number of books as (Stoker, B; 1897).( 2 Rob, L; 2002). As well as the famous book by Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the late 20th Century” being interested with this topic as my entire friend can know about this. Myths and Legends with necrophilic themes are common throughout history and the concept of sexual interference with the dead has been known and abhorred since the ancient Egypt. According to the free encyclopedia Wikipedia Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia, and necrolagnia, is the sexual attraction to corpses. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The word is artificially derived from the ancient Greek words: νεκρός (nekros; “dead”) and φιλία (philia; “love”). The term appears to have originated from Krafft-Ebing’s 1886 work Psychopathia Sexualis. Rosman and Resnick (1989) reviewed information from 34 cases of necrophilia describing the individuals’ motivations for their behaviors: these individuals reported the desire to possess an unresisting and unrejecting partner (68%), reunions with a romantic partner (21%), sexual attraction to corpses (15%), comfort or overcoming feelings of isolation (15%), or seeking self-esteem by expressing power over a homicide victim (12%).
              Stephen Hucker, consulting forensic psychiatrist and a professor at the University of Toronto, said necrophilia can be best defined as sexual arousal stimulated by a dead body.In his website,, he said the stimulation can either be in the form of fantasies (which are never acted upon) or actual physical contact (kissing, fondling, or performing sexual intercourse) with the corpse.Citing studies, Hucker said the presence of other personality disorders in necrophilia can manifest in more grotesque elements such as the mutilation of the corpse, drinking the blood or urine, or homicide (called “necrophilic homicide” or necrosadism”). Although assumed rare, Hucker said many have argued that necrophilia may be more prevalent given that the act would be carried out in secret with a victim unable to complain (since he or she is already dead). Herodotus writes in The Histories that, to discourage intercourse with a corpse, ancient Egyptians left deceased beautiful women to decay for “three or four days” before giving them to the embalmers. In some societies the practice was enacted owing to a belief that the soul of an unmarried woman would not find peace; among the Kachin of Myanmar, versions of a marriage ceremony were held to lay a dead virgin to rest, which would involve intercourse with the corpse. Similar practices existed in some pre-modern Central European societies when a woman who was engaged to be married died before the wedding.
             If we try to describe in Archaeological perspectives we specially depend on the cultural material left by those ugly minded kings or related beasts by the name of human being. These fragmentary material remains left by them survive only a few that is not sufficient enough to make clear assumption on this type of silly topic. Famous forensic, gender and sexual archaeologist Rosemary A. Joyce speaks sparsely about this in her world famous book Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives – Sex, Gender and Archaeology. The necrophilia practices can be found in the artifacts of the Moche civilization of South America, where pottery depicting skeletal figures engaged in coitus with living humans are among the ruins. In one of the ancient cultures Necrophilia was practiced as a spiritual means of communicating with the dead. Some employed it as an attempt to revive the departed. The concept of necrophilia has been known since ancient Egyptian times, when a dead woman’s body was left to decay for three to four days before being given to embalmers to discourage intercourse with the corpse. It is to be noted from the website ( was ancient Egypt a necrophilic culture? It’s because they wore bright red ribbons on their head. It was a necrophile symbol. If the red ribbon is a symbol of necrophilia what it could be in the case of other civilization? Don’t know may be a lot of research going to be to spell out the reality. John G. Younger examines the sexual practices, expressions and attitudes of the Greeks and Romans, from Catullus and Caligula, to orgies and obscenity, and from abstinence and incest, to pederasty and prostitution. He mentioned a number of reasons regarding this topic necrophilia. He is trying here for making a discussion  with an overview of current thinking on ancient sex and sexuality, and goes on to provide an extraordinarily wide coverage of a sexual culture so very different from our own, approaching the subject from the perspectives of literature, history, archaeology and art.
          Alarming news from the centre as the website of abs-cbnnews reported with the Headline “A case of necrophilia in Zamboanga” as ZAMBOANGA CITY, Philippines – A number of female corpses have been removed from their destroyed graves here, which authorities believe were abused by a group of necrophiliacs. About 5 dead bodies have been discovered in two cemeteries in Barangay Mercedes since October last year, when authorities found a freshly buried female corpse that was dug up and placed on top of her own grave.In February, a corpse of an old woman was also found outside her final resting place. This went on until March, when bodies of a 17-year old lady and a 13-day old baby girl were removed from their respective graves.Just recently, a corpse of a female teacher was found hanging upside down from her own stockings tied to a nearby post. Authorities said the victim’s underwear was also removed and was placed on her head. Relatives of the victims were enraged by the alleged sexual violation of the female corpses. Authorities said they are already looking at drug addicts, members of fraternities and lunatics as suspects to the so-called necrophilia case. This is really a disgusting mental disorder from the very beginning of the ancient civilization as now a day. Everyone should be aware of the wicked and cruel and inhuman activity as the human being  is all the best or may beneath the sea level with sin .

                                                       © aurnab arc 

 Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab 
Archaeology grad Student,deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
Jahangirnagar University.