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.