I don’t really understand why archeologists always assume every single statue from the ancient world is religious in nature. Why can’t people just buy a cute dog Knick-nack for their kitchen shelf?
Not all artifacts are religious in nature, neither are they always assumed to be such. I think no one would assume a bust of Cicero or some random mosaic is a religious artifact.
But I sort of agree with the feeling, because it seems like it is that explanation which people fall back to in the absence of any other clue.
To be nitpicky, (and slightly tongue in cheek), would "treasure hunter" not be a more appropriate term than "metal detector enthusiast"? I assume if there were a better tool for finding buried treasure, they'd happily ditch their metal detectors.
If they were after finding treasure, they would be better off buying lottery tickets. Metal detecting finds are more likely to have archaeological value than monetary.
I think "treasure hunter" is more likely to conjure the image of someone who'd pawn off an artifact to someone else. Like the people who busted into Egyptian tombs over the centuries.
Detectorists, a BBC show, is a wonderful (drama) show that explores this subculture. Every time a story like this comes up, I can't help but recall the characters' responses when they (spoilers) discover priceless ancient artifacts!
No really, they probably do. Archeologists have a love-hate relationship with laymen who hit upon artifacts. On one hand, a find is a find, and local communities can often point out likely archeological sites. On the other, these people might not handle artifacts properly, or fail to take notice of their context to the degree an archeologist might want, like taking notice of the depth at which it was.
10 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 39.2 ms ] thread> The licking dog is an example of a healing statue, and may be linked to a Roman healing temple at Lydney.
I have not heard of a "healing statue", so a bit of searching found this in Wikipedia:
> Some healing temples also used sacred dogs to lick the wounds of sick petitioners.
So it is an interpretation of the statue - not a bad interpretation, but some explanation would be nice.
But I sort of agree with the feeling, because it seems like it is that explanation which people fall back to in the absence of any other clue.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4082744/
No really, they probably do. Archeologists have a love-hate relationship with laymen who hit upon artifacts. On one hand, a find is a find, and local communities can often point out likely archeological sites. On the other, these people might not handle artifacts properly, or fail to take notice of their context to the degree an archeologist might want, like taking notice of the depth at which it was.