Researching on the Cheap Part 7: More Tips and Tricks

My conclusion about this series on research is that I could probably write an encyclopedia on this topic, and still omit things! So here are just a few more random tips and tricks for doing research.

One problem that you can run across while researching is the difficulty of interpreting artist renderings as a way of judging potential research value of an article. Older artifacts are often only available online as an artist’s rendering – a picture that someone drew of the piece. This is a difficult situation, because that artifact is being drawn through the interpretive eyes of the artist. Some artists are totally literal, they draw only what it actually there, and others draw what they think should be there. My personal preference is to compare an artist’s rendering with a black and white picture and a colored picture. Why? Because each of those mediums will give us a slightly different view of the piece. The newer super high-definition color photographs of an item, are usually the best, but even they may not show something that the human eye can detect. For instance, glass is extremely hard to photograph because minute scratches and oxidation on the surface of the glass will affect the perception of the color. The human eye and brain are capable of working out the actual color of the glass, which may not show in a photograph, so a description can be important.

Some years ago I was researching pre-1600 glass buttons and found a wonderful article written by one of the archaeologists who had excavated the Fort Popham site in coastal Maine. There we some great pictures of glass buttons recovered from the 1607 settlement. Try as I may, I couldn’t make the buttons come out with the “soft serve ice cream swirl” like the pictures showed. A few years later I visited the Maine State Museum and looked closely at the buttons. No ice cream swirls! Why had the pictures shown that annoying swirl? Bubbles. The way in which the buttons were lighted, combined with the digital camera used to take the pictures, increased the ability to see where microscopic bubbles had been captured in the hot glass.

This brings us to the “occasional finds” and “donated finds”. There are many thousands of “occasional finds” in museum data bases. These are objects that were found in random locations, often by using a metal detector. Objects that may have been lost randomly while in use, or moved from their original locations by agricultural activities are not worthless, but they do not tell us as much as we would like. Reputable sources, like the Portable Antiquities Scheme, or the British Museum will give as many details as they have about a piece, and compare it to other, more fully documented artifacts. This doesn’t mean that their information can’t have mistakes in it, but it is less likely to be wrong. A considerable number of items in places like the British Museum were collected and donated back before scientific archaeological excavation techniques were developed. Most of the major art museums are in the process of completely reevaluating their collections. They have discovered that many of their benefactors were lied to about the origins and value of their artifacts. The artifact records at the British Museum now reflect the continuing research, and restoration that has occurred.

When I was an undergraduate studying Archaeology, the old joke was – if you can’t figure out what something is label it as a “religious artifact”. While this is not as common a process as it used to be, older research may still include these sort of comments. Read “religious item” etc with doubt in your mind. Do they have a plausible explanation of WHY they think it’s religious? Some modern archaeologists actually have email groups that they query when they find something that they are uncertain about. It is almost impossible to know all of the tools that would be used in every craft. These email groups often include people involved in experimental archaeology and reenactment, because they are familiar with the use of archaic tools.

Next Time: Working with the Websites

English: The Entrance to the british museum in...

English: The Entrance to the british museum in London, England (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Researching on the Cheap Part 6: Even More “Warning Signs”

Sometimes, when I am working on a blog like this, I think, but THAT is just so obvious. And then I remember some of the things that people have told me before, and I keep typing. One of the things that we have to be very careful about as researchers is going into our research with a biased position. When I start a research project I try to learn as much as I can about a topic, but I am always open to new interpretations and new information.

When I am evaluating an author’s statement I try not to fall prey to the outlier position, but I don’t ignore it either. What I mean by that is that new information, or a new interpretation of information, may cause an author to draw different conclusions than most, or all, of the other authors. Just because it’s an outlier position doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but be cautious.

When I first studied geology as an undergraduate in the 1970’s, plate tectonics was considered to be a crazy outlier theory. Now it is accepted as the way the earth’s crust actually functions. On the other hand, these conclusions were based on scientific fact. If the author that you are reading is basing their conclusions on the possibilities of alien invasions, religion, or spiritual visitations, I recommend setting that research aside and finding another source. If your author is speaking from a position of extreme intellectual prejudice, their work is also suspect.

And then there are the things that “just don’t look right” but are. When I first started researching Celtic art many years ago, I was expecting to find lots of Celtic knot covered items. Instead I found amazing gold artifacts that looked almost like modern art sculptures. No Celtic knots at all on most of the pieces. Dramatic sweeps of metal. Wow! I was sure that this HAD to be bogus. But further research proved that what was bogus was my perception of what the art should look like. When you find something that doesn’t “fit” – do more research. My investigation of the “funny looking” Celtic artwork led me to a MUCH greater understanding of the Celtic peoples, from their original identification as a group in Germany all the way across Europe, to the British Isles. My perception of Celtic art was based on Victorian and Renaissance Faire propaganda.

You also have to be a little practical about interpretations in another way. A few years ago an article suggesting that Viking women wore their turtle brooches as brass bras was published. The press grabbed it and made sure that it popped up everywhere. Did I believe it for a minute? No. While Vikings probably did not have the same issues with nudity that we do, the idea of freezing your nipples off in the winter just didn’t seem really practical. There are basic rules of survival that need to be in play.

Next Time: More Tips and Tricks

Stone sculpture of Celtic hero, from the sanct...

Stone sculpture of Celtic hero, from the sanctuary at Mšecké Žehrovice near Slaný, Czech Republic. Français : Tête sculptée dans la pierre d’un héro celtique, provenant du sanctuaire de Mšecké Žehrovice, près de Slaný, dans la république Tchèque. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Researching on the Cheap: Part 5 – More on Good Goodies

Last time I ended my discussion with a few comments on grave goods. I mentioned that I had never seen my grandfather in a suit until I saw him at his funeral. In our culture most of us have a LOT of clothes. In ancient cultures this was rarely the case and the lower the social class of an individual, the more likely they were to be buried in something closer to what they actually wore. But if a person is buried without grave goods, does it mean that they were poor? It depends on their religious beliefs. The researcher has to know something about the culture of the person that they are looking at in order to be able to make a judgment about social class. When you are doing research, understanding as much about a culture as you can will help you to recognize something that is out of place.

Going to a reputable source online, like a museum or a well-known antiquity dealer, and looking at a bunch – not one or two artifacts, but a dozen or more if possible, will give you a reasonable feel for what something should look like. This “feeling” can often help you detect inaccurate information. I often have people bring me pieces of jewelry that they have purchased that are just “so wrong”. They look wrong to me because I have looked at LOTS of real ones, both in person and on-line. For instance, there is a well known merchant who sells a “Viking Turtle Brooch” with a face on it “from York”. It is a fiction. The face is from a Medieval piece and has nothing to do with Vikings. Now this is fine if you are not concerned about authenticity, but if you are, it can be very disappointing. Knowing what the real brooches looked like, the style of art, the use of geometry, the way faces were really depicted, would solve that problem, and it is really NOT that hard to discover.

This brings us to what my husband calls “weasel words” – sentences that have equivocation in them. Phrases like “might have been”, “could have been”, “sometimes”, etc., leave a lot of “wiggle room” for accuracy. The brooch that I mentioned with the face says it is “from York”. A reference that said “based on a Viking Age brooch found in York, England” is more likely to be accurate. Could someone fib, yes, of course, but most people won’t bother unless it involves a LOT of money (usually an antiquity).

I have started giving much more precise information about any reproduction artifacts that I make: where was it from, what time frame, who found it, where is it now. These are all facts that make something more likely to be useful and authentic to those who care. Some folks have very specific geographic areas that their persona comes from, so this information is important to them. On the other hand, it is important to understand that there are many things that researchers honestly don’t know for sure, so “words of equivocation” sometimes have to be used in order to maintain academic integrity.

Next time: Even More “warning signs”

Embed from Getty Images