Summer 2015 Volume 29 No. 2 Issue No. 112
16
C O N T E N T S
04
F E A T U R E S
10 Look with your eyes, not with your hands?
12 Ogham preserved digitally—3D
technology for a 3D script
16 The Ballyheigue wreck, Co. Kerry
21 Something fishy about the church at Killadreenan
24 Teaching an old dog new tricks:
UCD’s Roman coins in the digital age
21
26 A fine spot for fishing
31 Mega-ship art
33 Behind stone walls in Loughrea
37 Know your monuments—
Windmills
41 A third Romanesque font from
County Wexford
31
08
L A R S
R E G U
04 News
08 Net news
09 Quote…unquote
43 Events
44 Book news
49 Letters
50 Hindsight
41
Cover: Tacumshin windmill (Co. Wexford), built in the 1840s (courtesy of Austin O’Sullivan).
THE REALITY OF THE PAST If you listen to the never-ending political discourse on the radio or television, more often than not you will hear a proponent of a particular argument say, ‘But the reality is . . .’. The phrase, overused to the extent that it is meaningless, is relatively innocuous in itself, but it often implies that the speaker is going to make a point that will persuade listeners that his view is superior to that of the person on the other side of the argument. The speaker is presumably insinuating that he has a firm grasp of the issue based on the state of things as they actually are, as opposed to any idealistic, theoretical or notional idea. He is in possession of a ‘truth’ that others are not taking into account.
In general, archaeologists avoid using this phrase when discussing the past, presumably in recognition of the speculative nature of archaeological interpretation and the fact that no one can claim a monopoly on knowledge of the past, and much less of its former reality. Nevertheless, there are occasions when archaeologists project their own views onto the past. Some promote the past as an idyllic place where man and nature coexisted in perfect harmony. Others portray a past where danger lurked around every corner, not to mention plague, pestilence and impending catastrophe.
Some interesting questions arise from this observation. What kind of reality does the past hold for us in the present? How close can we get to understanding the actuality of the past? For example, we study the prehistoric past through the sites and objects that we recover from the landscape. Everything that we propose about the people who built the structures or manufactured the objects is based on inferences drawn from our analysis of such material. For this reason archaeological research is carried out with a high degree of forensic scrutiny. The presentation of the results of excavations or research is an important catalyst that inspires further research and advances archaeological debate.
Discovering the ‘reality’ of past societies would extend well beyond the mere study of the material cultural. The reasons why human beings do certain things and adopt certain fashions and ways of living tend not to leave an archaeological imprint. The stability of people’s existence in the past would have depended on many things—the availability of sustenance and the means to obtain it, the impact of their climate and the limitations of their environment, where they stood in society, how their society was structured, what their religious beliefs demanded of them, and so on. Add to that the coincidence of events and circumstances that could lead to catastrophe or bring benefits to an entire community and its neighbours.
A major restriction in studying the past is that it is extraordinarily difficult to reconstruct in its entirety; many aspects will be elusive and can only be imagined. Actions even in the present are subject to many restrictions and influences that do not have a tangible form that could be identified at any point in the future. The reality is (oops!) that the activities of our forebears have left us material with which we can engage. We should be cautious about the assumption that human motivations in the past were the same as they are today.
Tom Condit
3
