Introduction to Archeology:






According to Richard Reece, the Roman coins were “not happy” about being in the so called sacred spring. Why not?

The Roman coin was one of the substances that were derived from the exchange of goods and services. These coins were said to be one of the most valuable due to the fact that were made from silver, gold and bronze. The coins were not only used in Rome but in countries such as the Great Britain and Greece. Despite the high value that the coins heard, some of the authorities took advantage of their position by hoarding the coins so as to increase their value further. These made the lifestyles of the citizens in that they had to work harder to get the value equivalent to one coin. These were not the easiest times for the people of the Roman society due to the immense oppression that came with the search for the coin. This is why Reece states that the Roman coins were not happy (Howgego, 2007).

Later when the Roman coins and the metal work came to light, Guy de la Bedoyere and Mick Worthington felt the assemblage was “wrong”. Why?

The Roman coins and the metal work had been introduced to the people of Rome. This meant that they could enjoy the advantages that came with the coinage. Guy de la Bedoyerere and Mick Worthington however did put the credibility of the coins in that they differ from the original ones. The two archeologists argued that the original assembly of the coins differed from the original ones. This further implied that the original coins had been tempered with. Some of the ways in which they were tampered with was the quality, shape and texture of the new coin. This affected the general coinage of the new coin (Ando, 2000).

Why did the archeologists think the “Neolithic tomb” was a fake?

The Neolithic times consisted of tombs that consist of large rocks in nature. Most of the tombs created during this era posses the same qualities such as Stone Age and organized arrangement. The most recent discoveries on the Neolithic tombs were found in Ireland. These toms attracted an enormous amount of attention due to the controversy that came with their discovery. The tombs were said to be fake due to the way in which they were structured. The tombs are classified under passage tombs. Passage tombs have orthostatic characteristic that display the time in which they were drawn. These tombs however displayed armature orthostats that were supposed to make the tombs resemble the ancient tombs. This was exaggerated making the tombs subject for planted evidence which is not uncommon in the world of archeology (Malone, 2001)

There were three reasons why the archeologist believed the ‘Norman tower’ was a fake identify two

The Norman towers were fake due to the type of stone that are used to construct them. One of the reasons that support this notion is the fact that they are not built with genuine Kensington rune stone. The tower consists of modern stone that does not match the one of the prehistoric times.

Writers who wrote of the existence of the towers on several occasions wrote about non nonexistent features. Some of the components of the towers cannot be found to date. This displays that the towers were part of myths that were written to fuel the interests of the public (Adams, 2007).

According to the law of superposition, we know the Iron Age sword was placed in the ground at Llygadwy fairly recently. Explain?

The laws of superposition explain the arrangement of the rocks that are in existence. One of the reasons for this is to explain the age of the items found in the found. There are claims that the Iron Age sword was planted in the ground. This can be supported by the age of the soil which does not match with the age the discoverers claim the sword is. This sword is said to poses qualities of the Iron Age although the soil in the ground is younger than the stated time (Kelly & Thomas, 2010).

Adams, H. (2007). Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. Middlesex, UK: Echo Library.

Ando, C. (2000). Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Howgego, C. (2007). Coinage and identity in the Roman provinces. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Kelly, R. L., & Thomas, D. H. (2010). Archaeology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Malone, C. (2001). Neolithic Britain. Stroud: Tempus. Neolithic Britain. Stroud: Tempus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?