Egyptian Objects – Periodization

We are used to thinking of the various historical periods of ancient Egyptian history.  These generally include, Pre-history, Early-dynastic, Old Kingdom, 1^st Intermediate Period, Middle Kingdom, 2^nd Intermediate Period, New Kingdom, 3^rd Intermediate Period, Late Period, Greek Period, Roman Period, and Islamic Periods.  But is this the only way to think of dividing up Egypt’s past? 

There is a movement in Egypt today to be more inclusive in the display of the history of all of Egypt as opposed to just ancient Egypt.  But that has not always been true.  The Museum of Egypt in Cairo is really just a museum of ancient Egypt.  To fill in this gap other museums were erected.  How each of these museums chose to display their wares helps to show that Egyptian history is much more than just Pharaonic Egypt.

When Marriette designed the Museum of Egypt, he admitted that sometimes he chose aesthetic rather than “scientific” arrangements.  The Greco-Roman Museum was clearly focusing on a period of Egyptian history.  The Museum of Arabic Art divided up their displays based on material: glass, metal, ceramics, wood, etc.  The Coptic Museum tried to fill the gap left in all three of these museums to tell a story that still continues today.

However, this is not the only way to think of history.  Besides dividing history by who ruled Egypt we can use other factors to identify periods.  What if we divided up Egyptian history by religion (naturally with overlap)?  [Ancient Egyptian cult, Amarna, Cult, Greco-Roman, Coptic, and Islamic.]  Or what if we divided it by script?  [Early Egyptian Hieroglyph, Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian, Hieratic, Demotic, Coptic, Greek, Latin, Arabic.]  Language spoken? [Egyptian, Coptic, Koine Greek, Latin, Arabic.]  There are also geographic divisions, aesthetic divisions, material divisions, etc.

The point is that there are more ways than just the one that we usually fall into by default.  Sometimes, the narrative is better told from a different perspective.  If you are doing history and you have having trouble telling a story, it might be because you are looking at things from the wrong angle.  You might have to re-invent the way you think of history.

Royal Wedding – Westminster Abbey

The Evening Standard is reporting tonight, that the date for the wedding of Prince William is set for Friday, April 29, 2011 at Westminster Abbey.  The date will be the start of a four-day holiday (there is already a national holiday on May 1).  Kate wants to keep the details of her dress a secret until the big day so naturally there is lots of interest in who will design it, etc.  When they get married, Kate will be 29 and William 28 (she is five months older than him).

The wedding will be paid for by the royal family, the honeymoon will be paid for by the Queen, and the security by the taxpayers of the UK.  Scotland Yard is happy that they chose Westminster Abbey because it is smaller than St. Paul’s Cathedral and will “only” cost about £5 million.  Because Prince William is not the next in-line for the throne, it is not a “State” wedding.  This is probably better because it means they can invite more of their friends, whereas, if it were a State Wedding, there would have to be more dignitaries (and thus more security).  The royal aides are now working on the guest list.

The only ones not happy about this date are the Liberal Democrats who are hoping to get voting reform to pass on a May 5 vote.  They say that this wedding date will distract from their efforts to have a national dialogue regarding the vote.  They want the system to change from “first one across the line” to a ranking system where voters rank the candidates in “first choice”, “second choice”, etc.  This distraction will help the Tories (the political party that strongly supports the royals).

One group that is very happy are those who make memorabilia.  They have already started turning out commemorative mugs, etc.  Now they have a date and location to put on their merchandise.

It is reported that Westminster Abbey was the choice because it has a more “intimate” alter area.  Westminster Abbey (relatively near to Big Ben, for those not familiar with the layout) is closer to Buckingham Palace (also requiring less police officers along the route) than St. Paul’s Cathedral.  It has been associated with the seat of royal power for about 1000 years.  King Edward “the Confessor” built the abbey in 1065 (commemorated a week before he died).  However, from this point on it was the place where kings and queens were crowned.  It is also used for royal weddings.  In 1923, the Duke of York (later George VI) married the now deceased queen-mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Queen Elizabeth’s mum).  In 1947, a 21-year old Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip of Greece there.  Princess Anne more recently married Capitan Mark Phillips in 1973.

The most recent (memorable) event at Westminster Abbey, was in September, 1997.  Prince William was in that event too, as he followed the casket of his mother at the funeral of Princess Diana.  At least this will be a much happier occasion.

Managing Museums – Corporate Governance

Museums usually fall somewhere on the scale between purely philanthropic and purely commercial enterprises in how they are governed.  This post will briefly describe some of the aspects of the overseeing of museum management, from the administrative level.

How much authority should the museum curator have verses the museum board of trustees?  There was a story of how a certain manager wanted a live horse to be brought in to be part of an exhibit.  The board denied this request, citing various problems that this sort of thing might bring.  The manager wanted the horse anyway, so he bought one and said it was a donation.  Naturally the invoices for the purchase as well as those for the maintenance of the horse went into a bottom draw in his desk (as he couldn’t pay them without the board knowing).  In a short amount of time (perhaps weeks only) the horse had proved to be a huge success and the board changed their position regarding the purchase of “their own horse”.  The manager then took out the invoices and paid them all.

This is probably not the best way to manage a museum.  However, this sort of thing happens more often, we are told, then we might think.

People who are brought in to be part of the board are certainly not automatically qualified simply by the appointment to be on a board.  Many might not even know what they are supposed to do.  But they all should have a clear understanding of rule and their responsibility to the museum.  Preferably, they should have the right set of skills and experience so that they can quickly adapt to their new role.  They also should be people who have the time to do the job, a common vision with the museum management (so stories like the one just told don’t happen), periodic reviews to determine how well they work with management, and renewal for no longer than a total of 8 years.  Eight years is the maximum time that anyone should be in a position of administration because by then they have given just about all they can creatively.

If you find yourself on a board, remember to be bold but not to forget that you work for the public.  Remember how they view the museum and its displays.  It is ok to be a visionary as long as you don’t lose the basic museum essence.  Keep your strategy  in mind in all decisions.  Do not try to be all things to all people; instead – focus.  Do not try to make a long list of projects or activities.  Lists are not what boards should be doing.   Find the highest possible common denominator in price and convenience while maximizing quality.  Try to identify what makes you distinct and capitalize on that.

Good luck.

Managing Archaeological Sites – Resources and Development

In the UK there is no national heritage service but there are many departments that deal with heritage.  This post will be brief as this lecture dealt mainly with the UK system of heritage.

England alone has 19,347 scheduled monuments, 376,094 listed buildings, 1500 parks and gardens, 43 battlefields, 9027 conservation areas, and 404 English heritage properties to maintain under a budget that just was slashed.  This makes people here in the heritage sector pretty pessimistic about their ability to properly take care of all of these. 

Heritage is currently cared for in a tiered system that has regional, county, district, and perish levels.  There is an Agriculture, Horticulture, and Forestry law that dictates that no subsoil work (like drainage), plowing, or tree planting can be done at these sites.  Gardening is allowed as long as it doesn’t extend more than 300 millimeters below the surface. 

Archaeological sites are considered fragile and non-renewable.  However, there is no current law against metal detecting (a hobby in which the government still allows the finder to sell their finds and keep all the money for themselves) and government laws are proving to be somewhat toothless because of special interest groups.

These are just some of the problems that they face in the UK and are certainly some of the same problems that the countries we do archaeology face as well.

Archaeology and Education – Learning Outdoors (pt 3): After the Visit

One of the biggest mistakes in taking students on field trips is not following up the visit with continued learning back at school.  There are a multitude of cross-curricular opportunities following every visit.  This prolongs the visit and thus, prolongs the learning.  This post (the third of three) will explore some of these possibilities.

The most obvious form of follow-up is to use the numbers collected at the site in math class, use the drawings and photographs in art class, review the evidence in history class, etc.  You can also encourage communication skills in various classes using writing projects, digital recording (video, etc), drawing projects, physical projects like wall displays, models, reconstructions, photo displays (physical and digital), or any combination with the purpose of showing the school and parents what they learned.  It might even be possible to put something up on the school’s website, facebook, flickr, or other such sites (which would use computer skills).

In history/social-studies class you want to have discussion covering issues such as wear and tear caused by visitors at the site, the re-use of historic buildings, ways the community might preserve or display this site, or other heritage issues (see Culture Heritage posts for ideas).

As for you and your team, an evaluation will need to take place.  You might call the staff that went with you together and discuss things that went well and things that didn’t.  You will want to look for ways to improve not only to make the trip run smoother, but also ways to improve learning.  Some of the team might have some constructive ideas that will help the process of teaching at the site.  (Again, I would love to hear from you so we can all improve.)  Look at your aims that you created before you left.  Did you achieve these?  Why or Why not?  Just because something didn’t work that you tried, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work at another site.  Did you have a good idea that might work better elsewhere?  Did the students enjoy the learning experience?

I am looking at all three of these posts not from a teacher’s eye but from a tour director’s eye (as that is how I will most likely be visiting archaeological sites).  We have to do an essay for this class (due in January).  I have received permission to use the information that I have just shared with you and try to adapt it to that unique form of learning.  I will let you know how that goes (probably work on it over the Christmas holiday).

Archaeology and Education – Learning Outdoors (pt 2): During the Visit

This is the second part of a three-part post series about outdoor education – primarily the education at archaeological sites.  In this post we will explore what should happen at the site.

But first, let me quickly mention what should not happen at a site.  The teacher should not give the history of the site.  This should happen back in the classroom where it is easier to do (audio/visual aids, maps, charts, white/chalkboards, etc).  The students should know the history when they get to the site or else, by the time you get there much of your trip will be wasted as they will have to try to learn the history while they are trying to make observations about the site.  Another problem is that students will not be listening to you as keenly at the site as they would in the classroom.  The sort of education that happens here is unlike that in the classroom.  And again, the team you have with you should know what you are going to do at the site so they can be more effective in teaching (for they will have to do the teaching for you – each in their own small groups).

There are three models that we were given in class for what you should do at the site and the questions you should ask (this said, I suspect that after you read them you might get your own ideas – of which I would love to hear).  It seems to me that these models are based on cognitive ability: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced.  I will present each of these separately.

Teachers of the younger ages (and some older ones as well) need to keep questions to the basic level.  These questions answer What, How, Why, When, and Who in the following ways:  What was this place used for?  (This question utilizes some of the skills learned in the classroom – focusing on the overall purpose of the building, individual rooms, fire places, etc.)  How was it designed and constructed? (This question focuses on materials used in the construction, design features
like arches and pillars, and some basic construction techniques.)  Why was it built and why here? (These questions are less of purpose and more of landscape.  The students can see the hill that the fort is built on, or the river nearby for water to drink, etc.)  When was it built and when was it changed? (This is when you remind them of what they learned about the history of the site so they can identify that this used to be a place used by people but at some point in history this changed and the site is now what it is.  Again, the more work you put in while back in the classroom, the more the students will get out of the site now that they are here.)  Who built it and who lived here?  (Did a king or queen build this site?  Was it a man making a place for is family?  Answering questions along the line of family life verses village life, etc.)

For those students ready for the intermediate stage of learning, other questions might be more appropriate (or in addition to the previous).  These students will be asked to observe, find/record, and hypothesize.  The observing activities are designed to encourage the students to understand ancient buildings.  The activities that require finding and recording build on these observations and develop the questions, “What can I see?” into “What does it tell me?”  The students will then take the evidence that they have gathered and make historical deductions.  This approach was designed by my professor Dr. Corbishley and I think it is the most effective.

First, ask the students to make a list under headings “I see”, “I hear”, and “I feel” to help them organize as they observe.  They are to record words at particular locations.  (These lists can also be used later back in the classroom to discuss the history of the site.)  Ask them to look for “clues” that might help to explain what happened at the site.  Then they are to write three adjectives (descriptive words) and three verbs (doing words) to explain what people might have done here.  They should also find evidence for repairs and/or alterations to the buildings answering the questions “What has changed?” and “Why?”  Finally, they should sketch (rough) or photograph a part of the site which they sense reflects the atmosphere of the place.

Second, ask the students to record different materials used at the site and answer the questions “What is natural?” and “What is man-made?”  They should also identify ways the site has changed over time answering questions “What has been added?” and “Why?” as well as “What is now missing?” and “Why?”  You can have the students measure and record dimensions of different doors and windows (you can then use this data back in the classroom, cross-curricularly to compare with modern versions of each).

Third, ask the students to hypothesize from the evidence collected and tell you something about the owners or occupiers of the site.  What do we definitely know?  And what can we reasonably guess?  Have them work out which was the noisiest room and which was the quietest (this helps them to link physical condition with living condition).  Have them draw incomplete features (which they will try to complete back at school in say an art class).  Another thing you might do (ahead of time) is to prepare an artist’s impression of this site to be handed to the students on location (at the end) and ask the students to critique it based on the evidence that they have collected.

Advanced students should have even more critical thinking.  This level of learning (designed by Copeland and published in 1993) focuses on three basic types of questions: present, past, and the influence of the past on the present.  This level requires a bit more thinking about how this affects the students themselves.  Ask questions like: What is this place like? (present – expecting students to describe the ruinous state) What was this place like? (past – expecting students to describe the pre-ruinous state of the purposes for the rooms, building overall, etc) and What elements of the past can we still see? (influence – expecting students to identify not just walls, but other possible features).  Another line of questioning might be: Why is this place as it is? How and why does it differ from or resemble other place? (present - expecting students to describe processes comparing and contrasting with others they have experienced as ruins) Why was this place as it was? How and why did it differ from or resemble other places? (past – same questions again but this time asking them to explain the processes of life at the site and comparing and contrasting with other sites as they were when they were used) And what influence have these elements had on this place? How does this influence differ from or resemble what has happened at other places? (influence – expecting students to relate present and past elements to what is happening currently at the site)  The same sort of questions can be asked for about the present connection this site has with other sites, past connections, and the influences that these past connections have on how we connect the current condition with other sites.  A fourth line of questioning can be around how this place is changing and why, who this place changed, and the changes that are reflected from the past on the present.  The fifth line would be to ask students what it is like to be here in the present, what would it have been like in the past, and how does the past influence what it feels like to be here now?

You might have noticed how that the three methods build upon the previous in a way that, depending on your students’ ability and the time you have at the site, you might find it worthwhile to include more than one method in your visit.  You also might see these and become inspired in alternate methods.  If so, I would appreciate you posting a comment to tell us what you did.

Archaeology and Education – Learning Outdoors (pt 1): Before the Visit

The truth is that teachers are not normally trained to teach outside the regular confines of the indoor classroom.  Outdoor education is usually the realm of Physical Education teachers.  Teaching outdoors takes a little more effort.  However, the upside is that what students learn stick with them much longer (and sometimes for life) in this sort of teaching.  For that reason alone, it is more than worth the effort.  This post will be the first of three.  In this post we will explore what has to happen before visiting the archaeological site.  Some of these things are administrative and some are educational.  In part 2 we will explain what should happen at the site.  And in the third post we will explain what to do after visiting the site to prolong and maximize the lesson in order to leave an indelible imprint on the young minds.

It is not at all sufficient to just up and go to a site.  There must be considerable planning before the class actually does the visit.  The more planning that takes place, the better the results will be.  The first thing a teacher has to know is the purpose for the visit in order to maximize the time spent at the site as well as the integration of this visit in further learning.  To do this, answer these questions: Is the visit curriculum-based?  What do you expect to achieve?  And is the purpose clear to all other staff?  (This helps them to be prepared to help you achieve the overall purpose.)

A risk assessment needs to be made.  This is, of course, true for any outdoor trip.  The route needs to be mention (assessing risk), the site needs to be described along with the activities at the site.  This is not only useful for reducing accident rates but also for being purposeful in what you do.

The next thing to deal with is the practicalities.  All bookings need to be made (travel to site, entry to site, etc).  An adequate staff to student ration needs to be ensured.  Permission slips need to be returned from the parents/guardians.  Special provisions need to be made for any special-needs children.  Is the first-aid box replenished, medication for students prepared, emergency numbers and medical permissions for students obtained, and any other medical necessity prepared for?  Do the students have appropriate clothing and footwear?  Are lunches packed?  Are resources gathered (that the students need at the site – worksheets, pencils, etc)?  Are travel details and emergency numbers left with the administrative staff back at the school?  Does insurance cover this trip?  And do you have an accurate registration of all students, staff, and helpers (you don’t want to leave anyone behind – at school or at the site)?

In-school arrangements have to also be made.  This will probably change depending on schools but sometimes there is other staff that needs to know that you are leaving as their schedules and responsibilities might have to also be adjusted.  If you are a teacher that has other classes, they will have to be covered, etc.  Parents/guardians should not just be informed that you are going on a field trip but they should be educated as to the purpose of the visit.  This will help them to continue the education at home when the child(ren) return(s).  But most teachers will know about these sorts of things. 

How about the actual education that needs to happen before a visit?

Most people (adults and children alike) have trouble visualizing things that are not obvious, especially when they are disoriented.  What you are doing when you take students to a site is to take them from a 3-D situation (a classroom with walls, furniture, ceiling, fittings that they are familiar with) and thrusting them into a 2-D environment (most likely just a foundation floor-plan without any recognizable features) and asking them to imagine the 3-D (the way it was when it was
complete and in use centuries/millennia ago).  If you want them to do this you will have to teach them how.  One way might be to have them take the familiar 3-D classroom and transform it into a 2-D diagram or map.

Another way to do this might be to take them to a modern construction site (taking the proper precautions and obtaining permission) in its early phase and show them the foundation walls and ask them to tell you what they think it will look like, what the rooms might be used for, and then take a photo of it.  Return to the site periodically so the students can see the change for themselves.  Then, you can reveal the early photos and ask them to identify the “clues” in the foundation to what they eventually saw happen (like foundations for the front steps, widows, doors, halls, etc).  (A variation might be to take the photos yourself of the process and then show it to them in reverse so they can see the “process of time” that they will see the remains of at the archaeological site.)

Another way might be to have them compare architectural floor plans of a house and their school or church (buildings they are generally familiar with).  This way they get used to identifying classrooms, bathrooms, halls, assembly areas, etc, in the school and bedrooms, living rooms, etc, in the house and compare the difference from a “foundation” point of view.  Ancient buildings also had different functions – and you can show them this by doing the same thing with churches.  (A variation might be to have them compare a modern house floor plan with one from the Victorian era so they can see that there are differences in the ancient to what they are familiar with but also similarities.)

The last thing that you will certainly have to do is to play games with you students teaching them orientation (directions), memory recall (lay out objects on a tray, then take them away and ask them to remember what was there), and description (the aforementioned potato game – posted in an earlier blog - Cross-curricular Teaching).  These games are designed to be fun and to educate them on key skills they will need for the trip.

Now that all the preparations have been made, it is time for the fun!

Culture History – Intangible Heritage

“Intangible Heritage” is a term used by people “in the know”.  But for those of us who are just becoming part of the people “in the know” it may not be as familiar.  I had no idea it even existed until a few weeks ago, when I began class here at UCL.  This post will explain this term.

The first convention to tackle the issue of Intangible Heritage took place in 2003.  The focus was on the knowledge and skills that needed to be preserved from loss.  To be considered for preservation it needs to be demonstrated that there is a threat to its existence and that it is something that is worthy of preservation.  Threats like modernity and westernization are two common and oft used threats.  But other outside forces might also put this sort of heritage in jeopardy.

Intangible Heritage is really focused on memory.  It includes knowledge and skills but can also include artifacts and sites.  One of the running jokes in class is that persons can also be included as a “master craftsman”.  As such, would a person go around life with a sticker on them saying “I am a living human treasure”?

This memory finds expression in food, tales, artisans, folklore, healers, cosmologies, languages, customs, dance, games, performance, music, drama, mythology, ritual, handicrafts, architecture, etc.  The range is so broad and the scope so all-inclusive that there has come some questions about the validity of this designation.  Since tangible heritage fits within intangible heritage (after all, material remains were caused by someone’s skill or knowledge) isn’t intangible heritage simply a broader umbrella instead of a separate category?  Another of my questions is, “When intangible heritage is preserved (knowledge written down, skill recorded, etc) doesn’t it then become tangible?”

Another question (asked by people “in the know”) is “What isn’t heritage?”  After all, isn’t every aspect of life seemingly included in it?  One question that is always prevalent is “How do you determine what is ‘worthy’ to be preserved?”  Naturally, there are some things that should not be preserved.  Who makes these decisions?  And how are they reached?  Is this sanitation of the past?  And is that ethical?

And again we come back to that perplexing question, “Who owns heritage?”  One would naturally say that the person who created it owns it.  But how do you solve this?  Since heritage is passed down through culture, presumably the creator of the skill or knowledge has long died.  So does the community own it?  Which community?  Does “squatter’s rights” play any part?  Since any culture can adopt any heritage, where does it stop?  What is the delineation?

In music and authorship, there is an international law that says that their creations become public property 70 years following their death.  So obviously anything that is ancient fits this bill.  So is all heritage “public property of the world”?

And there is another problem.  As anyone who has a talent for art (of any kind) knows, once you try to codify it – the “art” of it dies.  Creativity cannot be trapped or captured in a bottle to be shared with others.  Creativity can only come through inspiration.  This is not something that can be “written down” or “recorded”.  So, in the act of making the intangible – tangible, are we actually killing it?

And what of stereotypes?  Many countries try to commercialize their heritage by promoting their “differentness”.  Once this is done, is it really their heritage or just a commercialized form of it?  An example would be to see if the Scottish actually use kilts on a day-to-day basis or is it only “traditional dress” for special occasions?  If it is only for special occasions, is it really their modern culture?  Or is it a memory of who they once were and now just dress up to pretend to be?  If the latter is the case, how “authentic” is it?

All of these questions just bring me back to an idea that is formulating and gaining shape with each new class.  That is: is culture actually something we can ever capture and display on a shelf in a museum?  Can we ever record culture?  Isn’t “culture” too complex and too fluid to trap, identify, and label?  What we today consider “culture” is really just generalizations about common denominators of a time gone by; an attempt to locate something that everyone does (even though there is never a case where everyone does the exact same thing).  And if we can’t do it today, how are we (as archaeologists) ever to be expected to do it for an ancient civilization of which we only have fragmented material remains?  This leads me to the suspected obvious conclusion that perhaps archaeologists should be doing something other than try to rediscover ancient cultures.  Maybe that is not what we are meant to be looking for.

Archaeology and Education – London Museum Visit

A few weeks ago (actually during a London Tube Strike) we took a field trip to the London Museum (which is a museum dedicated to the history of London).  It is one of the museums in London that does it “right”.  Dr. Mike Corbishley, our course teacher, toured us around pointing out things that he thought were better or worse from an educational perspective.  I was wondering if this was a good post or not but decided to go ahead with it as those who are teachers might find this post informative for when they do field trips, those associated with museums might like the information to help evaluate how they do their work, and those who visit museums might like to have another way of looking at what is displayed.

We were first asked to evaluate a display on Prehistoric London.  Half of us were asked to find good things and half were asked to find bad things.  The bad included that the display wasn’t clear in the story it was trying to tell, there were too many words in the displays, and objects were displayed too high or too low.  The good reported back that they liked that the objects were displayed as they were found in an archaeological context (ie skeleton in dirt burial complete with artifacts found around it), there were informative videos, and there were many models that reconstructed the ancient buildings/life of the people who used the objects we were looking at.

Between the Prehistoric display and the Roman display (the two major displays in this museum) was a temporary display about archaeology.  It illustrated briefly how archaeology was done.  At a glance one could easily see and understand the basic processes.

Our last stop was the large Roman display.  Dr. Corbishley pointed out the signage in this display area.  The display signs had two main sentences in large print, utilizing different font for the summary, followed by clear captions with illustrations.  Again, at a glance, a visitor could easily know what they were looking at.  If they wanted to know just a little more it was there as well.

In one display, tiny bits of metal from a Roman soldier’s armor was set on a wall over a picture of a Roman soldier in full battle gear in the place it went on that armor so that it was easy to tell what the metal bits were.  This illustrates how the staff at the museum makes an effort to design for learning.

One thing he didn’t think they got right was the route.  The Roman display is a “free” route, meaning that the visitor can go wherever they like and in any order they like.  The problem with this is that someone who is new stands the chance of missing something and not realizing it until the trip home when someone else mentions that they saw something cool … and the first person realizes then that they didn’t.  With a “fixed” route a story can be constructed and the visitor won’t accidentally miss something.

But this museum got a lot more right than they did wrong.  Visitors don’t want to see miles and miles of Greek pots.  The London Museum displays objects selectively and in context (either archaeologically as already mentioned or in the context of use).  They have a Roman street that is “theatrical” in its structure.  The visitor knows they are not on an actual Roman street but they still get the “feel” for it.  The displays along it are “in ancient context of use”.  This “closed” environment (with buildings on each side and displays built into them) also allows for sound to be better captured and heard by the visitor without disturbing other parts of the museum.  It has “bird’s eye view” models with the little people constructing the various buildings so the visitor can understand the use and what those buildings were for.  There are “touching and doing things”, cut-aways, signs asking questions (answered in the display), half walls for school children to have a flat surface to write on when filling out their worksheets instead of ropes, evidence is seen in the reconstructions (some lifesized for storytellers and actors), walls to project video on, “sitting down places” not just to rest but to consider more complicated displays (like in an art gallery does), and not many walls behind displays so that the visitors can walk all the way around nearly every display and see the “backside” of the objects as well.

I enjoyed this museum and will try to get back to it to take photographs of some of the things I found memorable for future use.  If you are in London, I highly recommend taking a half-day and checking out this museum.  If you have a class you want to take, they also have special rooms for young students to learn.

How Prince William got Catherine

The following was taken from the report in tonight’s Evening Standard newspaper under the article title “How Kate bagged her student Prince”.  I didn’t like the title much for it makes her sound as if she was sneaky, when the article didn’t portray her like that at all.  So I changed the title.  After all, it was William that wanted her.  This is the story…

Two days ago, the Evening Standard broke the news that Prince William had proposed to his off and on girlfriend of about 8 years (the first newspaper to do so).  From that time London (and indeed the world) began to eagerly anticipate a royal wedding.  William is in direct line for the throne after his father Prince Charles (the last one to have such a high-profile wedding when he married William’s mother Diana).  Tonight the Evening Standard is reporting that there is strong talk of amending the current law so that if Wills and Kate (as they are colloquially called) have a daughter before a son, she can rightfully be the successor to the throne (currently it would be the eldest son, even if he is not the firstborn).

But how did all of this come about?  Where and when did these two meet?  This post will answer those questions.

Most students in the UK have assigned housing.  When Prince William went to St. Andrews to study in September of 2001, he too was assigned to a hall, St. Salvator’s.  Kate was “the most attractive girl” in the same hall. But, as can be expected, many girls were vying for the Prince’s eye.  He first seemed to like a girl named Rose Farquhar.  Then it was Olivia Hunt.  But about halfway through the second year, he started to “secretly” go out with Kate.  He even (reportedly) paid £200 for a front row seat to a charity fashion show that she was in.

March 2004, was when the official announcement was made that they were “going steady” after a photographer “caught” them skiing together at Klosters.  For the most part the media left them alone so that he could have a “normal” student life.  A few of the closest friends together rented a farmhouse out of town in 2003.

At the end of that school year, Kate decided to move out and started looking for a place to rent in town, but Prince William wouldn’t have it (apparently he couldn’t do without her cooking).  By September she was back in the farmhouse with the group again.

As everyone who is familiar with England knows, the British like to drink.  But this is not true with Kate.  The paper reported that she cannot “hold her drink”.  I guess this means that she is a bad drunk.  So, she simply doesn’t drink.  As a result, she is always “clean and serene” at big parties (another plus for her).  The paper claims that “[h]e’s dutiful and she’s well-behaved.”  The end of the article proclaimed, “She’s perfect.”

Prince William gave her his mother’s ring as the engagement ring because he said he wanted his mother to not miss out on everything.  They were photographed with it yesterday (pictures I am sure everyone has seen by now).

Today she was photographed coming out of Westminster Abby (the likely site for the wedding next summer).  Many royal weddings have recently took place there.  But no one really knows and they haven’t announced it yet.  St. Paul’s Cathedral is the other likely site.  His parents were married there.  We will just wait and see.

Theory – Post-Processual

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s some archaeologists didn’t like the direction New Archaeology was taking the discipline.  They were dissatisfied and felt a need for addressing the cognitive factors of archaeology.  If you have noticed that Processualism also progressed from New Archaeology you are right.  “So how,” you might ask, “if Processualists and Post-Processualists appeared on the scene at about the same time, is Post-Processualism, post?”  That’s a good question.  Truth is, I don’t know.  This has led some to question whether there really is such a thing as Post-Processualism.  But whatever this theory is called, it does exist.  This post will describe briefly some of its most fundamental tenants of Post-Processualism as described by J. Matthews in his article “Archaeological Theory”.

Post-Processual theory holds at least 8 fundamental tenants.  The first is the rejection of the positivist view of science and the theory/data split.  The belief is that data, in its basic nature, is always theory-laden.

Second, is that interpretation is always hermeneutic.  Basically the way you study something is always affected with bias.

Third, Post-Processualists reject that material and ideal are in opposition.  Instead, they feel that they are united.  Cultural Historians used the approach of the ideal while Processualists rejected this for the material.  But Post-Processualists consider that the ancient man didn’t see either but both.

Fourth, is that archaeologists need to look at thoughts and values in the past.  The argument is that every archaeologist empathizes with the ancient man whether they admit it or not.

Fifth, is the realization that the individual is active not passive.  People were not “duped” by their environment as Binford and other Processualists would have you believe, but were intelligent thinkers who did what they wanted regardless of what society “told them to think”.  Post-Processualists prefer the bottom-up model rather than the hypothetical top-down model of Processualism.  And they prefer to look for conflicts that drive society (such as gender and class) rather than everyone just agreeing (consensus model).

Sixth, is the belief that material culture is like a text in that it can be read.  It also can be interpreted in various ways and these interpretations can be manipulated (and are manipulated even if the manipulation is not verbalized).  Culture is too complex to allow any conclusions.  And just like an author cannot control how people interpret his writing, culture is beyond any one person’s control.

Seventh, is the emphasis on context considerations (not only in the archaeological contexts, but in the archaeologist’s present context.

Eighth, meanings are always political because we are all political beings, effected and educated in a system that we reflect in our understanding of whatever we do.

I sympathize a lot more with this line of thinking than the past two (Culture History and Processualism) mostly because I am beginning to believe that culture is not something that can be pinned down.  And when we try to put culture in a jar and display it on a shelf we are over-generalizing and stereotyping.  I also believe that there is bias in everything (whether that bias is modern or ancient).  Everyone is a product of their upbringing but since we are not robots it is hard to be exact in classifying anything.  In fact, the act of classifying is to choose one feature and emphasize it over another. Which aspect is to be featured is an act of bias.  (But I am still working through these thoughts and haven’t settled on any particular view yet.)

This method of interpretation “at the trowel’s edge” is time consuming and prone to conflict (since everyone has an opinion).  I am not sure that it can be done but I like where it is going and certain of its tenants.  Thus far, I prefer this method over the past two.

Archaeological Photography – Photographing Buildings

Nearly everyone is familiar with the variety of lenses available for cameras.  You might not know what they all do but you probably have a general understanding that by twisting them you can change the focus and depending on the type of lens this can change drastically.  But have you ever seen a lens that flips to the right?  Today in class we were introduced to two lenses: the shift lens and the filter lens.  This post will talk about both.

Have you ever tried to capture a building from close range?  To do so you most likely had to tilt the camera up at an angle to get all of it.  But in doing so, you take the parallel sides of the building and put them in perspective.  This ends up with a photo of the sides of the building narrowing.  There is nothing wrong with perspective, but what if you want to keep the sides from narrowing and you just can’t (for lack of space) back up far enough to get the whole building in?  If you have a shift lens this is no longer a problem.

The Cone of Light in normal lenses at infinity fills up the size of the film.  However, the Cone of Light that comes through the aperture of a shift lens is larger than the film, this allows for the lens to shift and the camera to then be closer to the larger object.

It really is something amazing!

There are some cameras that even have a way for the film to shift which creates even more dramatic difference allowing the camera to be even closer.  These cameras do not have solid bodies like the cameras most people (including me) are used to using.  They have soft bodies.  We were told that the bellow bag body was preferable over the cardboard “accordion” bellows because the cardboard tended to resist the shift and distorted the photo in an unsatisfactory way.

One other trick on this tilt and shift camera frame allowed you to be even closer still to the building.  This feature is the tilt of the lens after the shift.  The lens is shifted up, the film is shifted down, and then the lens is tilted up but the film is left perpendicular to the ground.  Naturally this would allow for more building at closer range to be viewed by the lens but as the lens was no longer parallel to the film there would be a “depth of film” problem (“depth of focus” deals with the lens angle but “depth of film” only occurs in this situation where the lens is not parallel to the film).  To solve this problem (where only a thin line across the film would be in focus and the top and bottom of the film would be out of focus) a longer exposure was needed (similar to the solution in the “depth of focus” problem with the lens we learned about earlier in the term).

We went out into the “Main Quad” and shot a few different buildings at such a close range that without the shift only a small portion of the building could be seen.  We put the cameras on the tripods, attached the lenses and were ready to shoot when the professor informed us that in order for the building to “squared” in the photo we needed to square and level the camera.  We made the adjustments and shot the photos.  It was fun and next week we will work in the dark room so I can report on the photos we have been taking, including these and let you know how it went.

The other type of lens we used was the filter lens.  It was a normal lens in all respects except that it had an extra “ring” that could be turned to add either a “yellow” or an “orange” filter.  (There are other filters available such as red, blue, green, etc.)  A filter lens is useful for taking black and white (B&W) photos.  Filters allow for more contrast in pictures.

If you ever have taken a B&W picture of landscape chances are the sky had a washed out look to it in the B&W photo.  The reason for this is that the blue is not being picked up by the film.  Or if you have seen early 19^th century photos you probably noticed that the people looked ashen.  This was because the red in those early films wasn’t picked up as well.  The right filter would have helped in both cases.

To correct these problems, use a filter to “filter” out certain colors that you want to contrast.  If you are taking pictures of fall leaves, or example, choose a filter where one of the colors of the leaves (red or yellow) is also the color of the filter.  You will be happy with the sharp contrast that results.  Again, we will develop these pictures next week so I will report on the results then.

Egyptian Objects – Analyzing Text

Is text good or bad?  Perhaps I would favor the answer that neither are because text is not ethical, it is simply a mode of expression.  What is written might be good or bad as it reflects the morality of the one expressing thought, but the words themselves are just words.  However, in the early colonial period in Egypt, text wasn’t necessarily considered bad but the printing press was by some Arab leaders.  Why?  Because the local Arabic way of disseminating information from text was not the way we approach text in the West today.  This study formed the basis for an interesting discussion on assumptions and presuppositions regarding ancient Egyptian text.

In 19^th century Arabic culture in Egypt (I want to be specific for I am not sure how much it has changed), printed words were readily accepted.  However, the quick and voluminous powers of the press were rejected.  The reason was that words can be interpreted in many ways.  It was the custom that the one who wrote the words would then explain what he meant to a student.  Through dialogue the correct meaning could be conveyed.  That student was then qualified to read the text to others as long as he provided the interpretation as well, again through dialogue.  A printing press would not allow this interpretation to follow the words and thus misunderstandings were possible.

Anyone who doesn’t believe that misunderstandings can take place need look no further than the Christian religion with its plentitude of denominations all based off the same text but holding (sometimes vastly) different understandings of this text.  Dialogue along with textual study (what is called “Bible Study”) usually clears these differing understandings up and brings them into somewhat more agreement.  But what do you do with ancient texts?  No one is around to explain them.

Now to take this in another direction…

Certain assumptions are made when someone sees Egyptian hieroglyphs.  Among these assumptions are perhaps its uniqueness, its mystery, its rigidness, and its complexity.  The same is true for alphabet users today when they look at non-alphabetic scripts, such as those in Asia.  The assumption is made that the alphabet allows for greater freedom in a similar way that Greek art is assumed to have greater freedom because we can see the possibilities and the flow of the creases in the garments.  Yet, anyone who uses a non-alphabetic script (or studies an ancient script such as Egyptian hieroglyphs) realizes that freedom is actually higher in non-alphabetic scripts; and this freedom might make it easier to read and understand.

The Egyptian hieroglyphic script has its alphabetic symbols, but it is not limited to alphabetic symbols.  The alphabetic symbols are split into three categories instead of English’s one.  There are symbols that have just one sound each (“uniliteral” like English).  But there are also symbols that may have two sounds each (biliteral) or three sounds each (triliteral).  Think of the famous ankh symbol (a cross shaped symbol with a loop on top instead of the upper vertical line of the cross) it has three sounds “ah”-“en”-“kh” and yet all three could be expressed with three uniliteral signs as well, or one uniliteral and one biliteral.  Thus, this one word can be written at least four different ways (basically).  This provided more freedom.  Spelling (the use of one symbol/letter per sound) was not as important to the ancient Egyptian scribes as filling the space provided for the writing.

But this freedom (from spelling) could cause some problems with homophones (words that sound alike but mean different things).  The hieroglyphic script of ancient Egypt used determinatives at the end of words to solve this problem.  In English we use precise spelling that helps us solve most homophone problems.  “See”, “sea”, and “C” all sound alike but are distinguished by the use different letters to help us understand the meaning.  However, what if you only could hear the sound and not see the letters?  Or what if you could only hear the sound and any combination of letters could be used?  How would you know which was meant?  The Egyptians would put something after the letters to make this clear (determinatives).  So in our English example, an eye might follow the letters for “see” to indicate that sight was meant.  Likewise, water might follow “sea” to indicate that a large body of water was meant.  And, another symbol, such as a rolled up scroll might be used after “C” to indicate that the letter was simply meant.

However, this complexity (and this is just the beginning, the script is much more complex) causes many to assume that only a few people could read it.  The problem with this assumption (beyond the fact that it is not backed up by any evidence) is that we forget that the Egyptian hieroglyphic script was based on the Egyptian language, a language that any Egyptian could speak.  Hieroglyphs were common symbols of things in everyday life.  If we could use another English example, the word “belief” in English might (if written with symbols instead of letters) simply use the two symbols of a bee and a leaf.  Anyone who knew what a bee looked like and what a leaf looked like could easily sound out the word.  But we, in the West separated by vast space and millennia from the “dead” language of the ancient Egyptians have to learn the Egyptian language as well as the script at the same time.  This compounds our problem and gives the false sense that the language is difficult.  The ancient Egyptians would not have found it so.

Countries (particularly those in Asia) today with non-alphabetic scripts have a higher literacy rate per capita than their counterparts in the West (using alphabetic scripts).  Why is that?  Could it be that although they seem very complex and difficult for us who are used to alphabetic scripts, they are actually easier to use by those who already speak the language?

When approaching a text (whether of ancient Egypt or of modern origin) it is necessary to understand that the language that is being represented by the markings on the document, wall, etc made sense to someone.  Our understanding of these texts must leave room for alternate interpretations (unless we have the one who wrote it with us).  We also must realize that the script we are used to may not (and most probably isn’t) the best and most logical way to convey a meaning without misunderstandings.

Managing Museums – Project Management

The number one task for a project manager is to deliver creative solutions while keeping the project on time and on budget.  It takes skill to convert constraints into possibilities.  The project manager must know why the project exists and be able to help everyone else know.  This post will look at one of the most informative and useful classes I have had yet – project management.

Museums exist for the visitor.  Thus, in considering the VISION, the only person that really matters is the visitor.  Keeping this before the staff puts out lots of fires.  This focus also helps keep the staff from turning the museum into a club for insiders.

Most projects take 3-4 years before any construction starts.  Overall, construction of museums generally takes around 9 years.  Along the way, it is important for the project manager to find little events to accomplish so the staff can feel success.  The project manager has the basic job of being sure that the right two people are talking to each other at any one point so that the overall 2000+ people that will be involved over those 9 years can all be successful.  Also, project managers must question why information is asked and evaluate it before passing it along.

Managing time and deadlines along the way is vitally important.  There is no worse feeling then spending the last night with the museum staff hastily putting objects in display cases (often with a lot less care than is desired) for the opening the next morning because time wasn’t managed properly along the way.

In designing displays, always ask yourself, “Does the visitor really want to know [such and such]?”  Often you will want to say it but if the visitor doesn’t want to hear it you are wasting your time.  There is a standard size of text and height of text in displays, but consider what the objects say about each other rather than what you want to say about them when writing the copy.  Also keep the labels to under 25 words.

The BUDGET is one of the most difficult things to manage and honesty is the only way to do it.  It is important to always ask why things cost what they cost.  If you don’t have the budget for something then there is no reason to waste time designing it.  Know your budget and work within it.  One of the most common ways to go over budget is to have the director or other museum staff enter into the construction zone.  Why?  Because, what usually happens is the director or staff talks to the contractor and says something like, “you know, now that I look at it, wouldn’t it be nice if we did [such and such].”  Contractors like this because it means more money for them.  But it will mean going over budget and killing your schedule.  It is very important that once the construction begins, that everyone on staff (including the director) stays out of the construction zone and lets the project manager do the managing.

Managing ASSETS is also extremely important.  The project manager needs to know how much time it takes to safely move objects from the vault to display cases, etc, what types of mounting are needed, and how early labels need to be made.  It is important to select as few objects as possible to display as visitors do not like the “warehouse” look.  Thus, the project manager needs to force the design early in the process (it can always be reviewed and changed, but this gives everyone something to work from).  And remember, if you want visitors to “get it”, don’t be subtle – be blunt!  The goal is to take the exhibit from the realm of sterile curiosity to the personal level that is life-changing.  You want to make an exhibit that strikes an emotional chord with the visitor that they will not forget when they leave.

To accomplish this massive undertaking, meetings need to have the right people in them that can actually make decisions.  Don’t have too many meetings (or none at all) where a decision can’t be made.  Anything that stops projects, quality, deadlines, etc, costs more.  Therefore it is important to identify possible RISKS.  Early on, the project manager needs to have a risk assessment done.  These projects are not cheap and take lots of time to complete.  So what happens if key players leave during this period?  What happens if the director cannot get the funding?  Do all parties work well with each other?  If not, what can be done to build bridges?  A written statement explaining what will happen if any of these things (and others) does actually happen.  That way, when it does (and bad things always happen), there is a plan that can easily be followed so the project can keep moving forward.

You need to know who is allowed to make decisions, know why a meeting is being held, and build in time for consultation and evaluation along the way.  And finally, remember, you may only build a museum once in a lifetime so try to enjoy it.

Managing Archaeological Sites – International Policies

International law has no teeth.  Everyone knows it, but this does not stop the international community from getting together each year for various conventions.  These conventions produce policies, laws, charters, declarations, and recommendations.  Since I (as most archaeologists) will be working in a country (Egypt) that I am not a citizen of, it is good to understand some of the trends in thinking of the international community over the last century.  This post will review the general trends of thought over that time.

Early efforts were focused on not fighting each other.  These took place during or shortly after the World Wars.  These meetings also were concerned with the best ways to preserve sites and whether or not to reconstruct them.  In the 50’s the international community seemed to be mostly interested in “being modern” and ensuring that “stuff” wasn’t destroyed.

The 1960’s saw the creation of the famous Venice Charter (which dealt with conservation and restoration issues).  This charter would affect thinking about archaeological sites for decades.  Other conventions were concerned with issues of access and landscapes around monuments.  The World Heritage Convention and the Burra Charter both happened in the 70’s.  This decade saw issues regarding historic towns and buildings.  The 80’s were mostly concerned with tourism and ethics.

The 1990’s, saw the most conventions ever held around the world.  Topics ranged from the protection of archaeological sites to development concerns.  Issues of authenticity (with the Nara document), sustainability, and environment were important.  Also it was in this decade that the “New Burra Charter” was written.  It is thought that the increase in the number of conventions in the 90’s was due to the felt need in the heritage community of being visible on an international stage.  In order for local laws to be written to recognize the international “suggestions”, it was important to speak to politicians.  This happened to mixed success. 

In this last decade (2000’s) globalization was the big issue with concerns over identity theft, cultural diversity, the value of heritage, the preservation of digital and intangible heritage, and the interpretation of culture heritage.  With the global
recession, there just wasn’t the funds available or the need to keep up the large number of conventions.  It was felt that the heritage community should chose its fights and focus only on what really mattered.

Today, the trend is for stability.  There is a push to resist change and remain diverse.  There is still a strong emphasis on “hating” ourselves in the heritage community in order to recognize non-western philosophies on culture.  There also is an increase in the feeling of being more transparent in site management.  And there is a call for higher more reliable monitoring.

This sort of study helps to ground us in the present by showing us where we have been so we can see the trend of where we might be going in the near future.

Cultural Heritage – Repatriation

Should the Rosetta Stone return to Egypt?  The answer you give to this question demonstrates your feelings on “repatriation” or the return of objects to their countries of origin.  This post will discuss some of the issues surrounding repatriation.

One thing I think is clear is that every situation deserves a separate approach and a separate solution.  Not every country on earth is asking for “their” objects back.  Those that are, need to be evaluated each on its own merit.  Sticking with Egyptology, the approach to the Rosetta Stone (which was used as a stone in the wall of a fort for defense by the Egyptian army, “rescued” by the French, and “taken” as a spoil of war by the British) is not the same approach that will be used for “Cleopatra’s Needle” (“given” as a gift from the local government to the English).

The first question to answer is who do these ancient objects “belong” to?  None of the people who used or made them are still alive.  Direct descendants (for the Egyptian artifacts) can never be proven, so family possession cannot be determined for private objects.  The religion that “owned” the objects from temples was long ago renounced as “pagan” by the local Egyptian populace (Muslim and Christian alike).  Does general ethnic decent qualify for “ownership” over the ancient (and largely ignored – until the coming and interest of foreigners)?

Today, the Egyptian government is doing fantastic work (compared with past efforts – or lack thereof) with care, maintenance, and reconstruction of monuments for the purpose of encouraging tourism.  I do believe that there are genuine scholars with authentic scholarly motivations among the Egyptian Egyptologists.  And I have no problem at all with the use of “tourism” to appropriate money from the government for the care of these objects.  Indeed, I, myself, have given permission to the official advertising agency (JWT in Cairo) to use photos I have taken in Egypt for their project for the ETA (Egyptian Tourism Authority).  (Those of you in London may have seen the fantastic advertisements in the Tube stations or on the sides of buses here in the city.)  I think it is past time for archaeologists to “milk” the tourist industry instead of fighting it, to raise money to do our work (but this is another topic).

The next question is in regards to human remains.  How old does something have to be to deserve “privacy”?  In the Museum of London, a Roman skeleton has been hidden by closing the coffin out of respect for the dead, while a prehistoric skeleton is still boldly on display.  Should the mummies in the Cairo museum be returned to their tombs?

These sorts of questions are hard to answer.  Respect for the dead is one angle.  But what about safety?  Mummies didn’t fare well in their tombs and were only safe when put in the Cairo museum.  King “Tut” has been returned to his tomb, but questions arise as to the preservation of his mummy in the moist tomb conditions there (because of visitors).  So should the tombs be closed then?  That would kill tourism.  What about scientific studies that need to be conducted?  I believe the Egyptian Antiquities Department has put forth the right attitude in this regard – showing the utmost respect for the dead, limiting exposure time when being studied, and heavily screening the studies that will be allowed.

How about the mummies that are in other countries?  Should they be returned to Egypt because they are people?  Should they be treated any differently then objects?  No one “owns” people.  But should these “people” (ie mummies) be allowed to rest in a museum in the country they died in or in a museum in another country?  Care, respect, and preservation being equal, does it really matter which museum in the world houses them if they are not to be put back in the tombs?

As for the tourist angle, isn’t it better for countries such as Egypt to have objects in other countries to help promote tourism?  If everything was in Egypt, would that force people to go there?  Or would people just forget about Egypt?  (Maybe not with Egypt but other, less “famous”/“popular” countries maybe…)

How about safety?  If all the “eggs” (so to speak) are in one basket, doesn’t that put them more at risk from terrorist attack, natural disaster, or just common error?

And we come back again to the original question.  Whose heritage is it really?  None of the ancient civilizations still exist today.  Modern countries can lay claim to the ancient civilizations that lay within their current borders but not to those without.  Egypt (at one time) held claim to all the territory up to the Euphrates and down deep into the modern Sudan.  What about the “Egyptian” artifacts that are found in Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Jordan?  Do these belong to Egypt because the ancient civilization “owned” them?  Rome conquered much of the Mediterranean world.  Does this mean that all Roman artifacts found in Greece, England, Egypt, belong to Italy?  Is Egypt going to export all of the Greek period artifacts to Greece, the Persian period artifacts to Iran, and the Roman to Italy?  Who owns the past?

I believe that “wrongs” should be “righted”.  But I am not one who is easily swept away by emotion.  If something was legitimately stolen from one country, it should be returned.  But there has to be proof of ownership at the time it was taken for me to believe that a wrong was committed.  Do late-19^th century Egyptian tomb “robbers” who sold their discoveries to interested “others” count as having “owned” the artifacts they discovered?  Did the establishment of an Antiquity Department in the Egypt government count as “ownership” over the objects yet undiscovered?  If so, what about the objects the Antiquities Department of Egypt gave to the foreign excavators and governments?  Was that a “wrong”?  Does that count as “stolen”?

These issues are much deeper than at first they might appear.  The answer to Repatriation is not a simple one.  However, the complexity of the answer makes it a worthy one to consider.  Whichever side you find yourself on, I hope you know why you are on it – and I hope it took you some time and thinking to arrive at it.