Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#21

Post by avsteele »

p1necone wrote: post #15
profsummergig wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much will never be found thanks to this law.

Random amateurs digging stuff up is next to useless from an archaeological perspective - once you've disturbed the earth and taken stuff out of the ground you've already destroyed so much contextual information. Even professional trained archaeologists intentionally only excavate parts of sites when they know there's more to find because we expect there to be much better technology in the future. Amateurs digging for…

I mean, this incident should call your assumptions about this into question.

Yes, some might be lost by random digging. But if it would not otherwise ever be found then nothing has been lost.

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#22

Post by mandmandam »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #16
mandmandam wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, Flahavans are from Waterford and this find was in Westmeath. Second, if you want the actual best porridge get yourself some Kilbeggan (which are actually from Westmeath, funnily enough).

HN has a wonderful reputation for always finding an unexpected expert to comment - from nuclear physics to philosophy, pre-history to … porridge :-) But we have buried the lede - Flahavens or not, is it water and salt, or is it milk?

Milk is preferable, with a splash of water. I use oat milk, but water is fine in a pinch. I add such a small amount of salt that it may as well be a placebo.

Here are my hard-earned porridge cooking tips, not that you asked:

Start soaking the oats the night before in the pot you'll cook them in (in the fridge if you're using dairy). This softens the oats and reduces cooking time by a lot.

First thing in the morning, cook them on the lowest heat for about 20 minutes while you do your routine. This way you don't need to stir them constantly, they're extraordinarily creamy, and you won't burn the oats to your pan.

Then add a touch of cream (or milk) to your bowl to cool the oats down some, and add some maple syrup if you're into decadence. Ultra low effort, maximum effect.

And if you want to get real weird with it, add some pomegranate seeds. I don't generally bother, because pomegranates are a bit of work, but it's awesome.

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#23

Post by Loughla »

darby_nine wrote: post #7
Loughla wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same question. Anyone from Ireland here that might have any idea at all what that's about?

Idk about this specific thing, but this is much simpler than it sounds if it operates like other anthropology. Ritualistic means intentional, and supernatural means symbolically meaningful. In other words, this is less of a specific claim and more of an "idk but they were clearly up to something ".

The problem is how it's written, I think.

I now understand what you're saying, but the way it's phrased in the article makes it seem like they need to know where it came from for ritualistic and supernatural reasons. Like there are rituals the anthropologists have to perform, not that they might have ritualistic use in the past.

It's a weirdly written sentence.

Or maybe I've just been awake for too long.

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#24

Post by extraduder_ire »

avsteele wrote: post #21
p1necone wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random amateurs digging stuff up is next to useless from an archaeological perspective - once you've disturbed the earth and taken stuff out of the ground you've already destroyed so much contextual information. Even professional trained archaeologists intentionally only excavate parts of sites when they know there's more to find because we expect there to be much better technology in the future. Amateurs digging for…

I mean, this incident should call your assumptions about this into question. Yes, some might be lost by random digging. But if it would not otherwise ever be found then nothing has been lost.

If something's been in the ground for hundreds of years, it'll still be there for a few hundred more. There's little reason to want to maximize the amount you're excavating right now. Unless your goal is to find treasure and profit somehow.

I think the greater concern for artifact loss is someone doing earthworks, finding something, and then not reporting it because they don't want to wait for archaeologists to check out the site.

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#25

Post by AlotOfReading »

astrange wrote: post #19
scotty79 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be a supernatural reason then? Is there some context in archeology that is labeled as supernatural that's different from ritualistic context? And what other things lie in the range between those two?

Ritualistic is what archaeologists call everything when they can't tell what it's there for, but it was clearly there for a reason. It sounds like it means religious, but it's more general than that.

The word ritual is orthogonal to how much is known about the usage. "Ritual" is just a way to describe objects that have some higher purpose, beyond any mundane and utilitarian purposes their basic form might serve. The textbook example is a thurible, the censer on a chain used in churches. They're not used because anyone specifically wants a lot of smoke in the air (a fog machine would do just fine) or because swinging them is fun, but rather because there's a higher ritual purpose being served by those particular objects being used in those particular ways.

It's like calling an object rugged or utilitarian. It's not a statement on what you know about the object's specific purpose, but rather an adjective describing something else entirely.

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#26

Post by [deleted] »

cwillu wrote: post #9
colmmacc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rationale is that while you may own the land, you don't own the artifacts, and the state has an interest in ensuring that history is recorded and preserved professionally. In effect, archeology is a licensed occupation, but then so is cutting hair in most US states. If the story about metal in machinery is true, then really no offense was committed. Using a metal detector to find what you think is a loose horsesh…

“In effect, archeology is a licensed occupation, but then so is cutting hair in most US states.” This doesn't strengthen the argument.

[deleted]

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#27

Post by astrange »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #25
astrange wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ritualistic is what archaeologists call everything when they can't tell what it's there for, but it was clearly there for a reason. It sounds like it means religious, but it's more general than that.

The word ritual is orthogonal to how much is known about the usage. "Ritual" is just a way to describe objects that have some higher purpose, beyond any mundane and utilitarian purposes their basic form might serve. The textbook example is a thurible, the censer on a chain used in churches. They're not used because anyone specifically wants a lot of smoke in the air (a fog machine would do just fine) or because swing…

Hmm, isn't rugged strongly associated with the purpose of something? It's like "military-grade", it means it's designed to stand up to heavy usage in bad conditions.

Maybe that's "ruggedized".

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#28

Post by AlotOfReading »

astrange wrote: post #27
AlotOfReading wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word ritual is orthogonal to how much is known about the usage. "Ritual" is just a way to describe objects that have some higher purpose, beyond any mundane and utilitarian purposes their basic form might serve. The textbook example is a thurible, the censer on a chain used in churches. They're not used because anyone specifically wants a lot of smoke in the air (a fog machine would do just fine) or because swing…

Hmm, isn't rugged strongly associated with the purpose of something? It's like "military-grade", it means it's designed to stand up to heavy usage in bad conditions. Maybe that's "ruggedized".

It's not indicative of the specific purpose of something. You can have a rugged backpack, a rugged water bottle, and a rugged vehicle without any of them sharing the same purpose to you.

Re: Irish museum solves mystery of Bronze Age axe heads delivered in porridge box

#29

Post by jkaplowitz »

cwillu wrote: post #9
colmmacc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rationale is that while you may own the land, you don't own the artifacts, and the state has an interest in ensuring that history is recorded and preserved professionally. In effect, archeology is a licensed occupation, but then so is cutting hair in most US states. If the story about metal in machinery is true, then really no offense was committed. Using a metal detector to find what you think is a loose horsesh…

“In effect, archeology is a licensed occupation, but then so is cutting hair in most US states.” This doesn't strengthen the argument.

I do see some value in having the state license people who make a business of convincing strangers to allow them to use sharp cutting implements on their body in ways that, if not properly maintained and used, could lead to injury, to undesired slow-to-reverse harm to appearance, or to transmission of infestations like head lice.

There's plenty of room to disagree on what the specifics of this oversight should involve, but some degree of pre-approval seems very much appropriate.

Post reply on HN