Your call on removing the towers is one I expect differs from most player restorations - one that should derive from your experience and education. Good work!
This is a reupload due to an audio glitch. If you want to see the uncut work on the "icebox" building, here it is: th-cam.com/video/WM4xE7ep8NI/w-d-xo.html
Hi Daskalos! Next episode, or whenever really, could you go over the idea that this site was perhaps intentionally built underground from its beginnings? I am seeing a lot of evidence to suggest it WAS built underground rather than ever on the surface! At no point in the city do we really ever see any of it buried under dirt, rock or anything else for that matter (other than skulk). We know the site is ancient and has been around a long time, and there is evidence the areas these cities inhabit are not entirely geologically sound based on tuff being present. All of this to me suggests that the city wasn't built above ground, another example we see of this is that every other ruin we tend to find in minecraft has some degree of being buried... desert temples, underwater ruins, trail ruins (which based on their depth and state of degradation, are almost certainly younger than these ancient cities which should all, or mostly be completely buried by now) I think it is very possible that this site, by removing the cave roof and surrounding cavern features, has perhaps lost some of the context of its history if it is indeed true that the city was designed and built underground at its establishment. I'd love to see you cover this possibility and explain what ramifications this could have on the site restoration so far! I doubt there is much real world precedence to go over with this, but if there, is it would also be cool to learn about that! Thank you!
I am no history buff, nor have I studied much archeology. However, the underground Derinkuyu caves in Turkey may be similar to the Ancient City in Minecraft as a city built solely underground. This is what comes to my mind when I think about the Ancient City.
I don't know who would think it used to be above ground. It's made of the stuff it's surrounded by, and sometimes seems carved out of the rock itself, like the Tuff.
I was wondering if you're ever planning on taking a look (listen? :P) at Disc 5, what is possibly the last remaining record created by the inhabitants of the Ancient City.
Demolishing the intruder towers definitely needed a stronger argument. The bar for "it has nothing to do with this" should be much higher than "it was added after the fact". To cite a real example: the Connections Museum Seattle has exhibits of telecommunications equipment which have been restored to working order. This to me is a very harmless form of restoration, since equipment from this era is generally in good enough condition that you can determine the historical state of the artifacts, and restore functionality while maintaining that. However, they also partially restored an artifact to its state when first manufactured, and I found this very upsetting. Quite frankly, the changes these machines underwent when they were used represent the *majority* of the historical value -- they represent the history of a wide period, whereas the manufacturer's state represents a single point of history, and these changes also represent unique history, whereas the state at manufacture would have been highly similar between other artifacts of the same model. I view that restoration as a significant reduction in historical value in exchange for showcasing a small part of its history. Unless you present an argument otherwise, I'm naturally going to be hung up on the possibility that the intruder structures are similar in nature -- representing a chapter in the site's history which could be on par with that of the city's original occupants. I don't think it's *hard* to argue that the towers are historically near-superfluous, but I do think the argument needs to actually be made, and variations of "not original" don't do that. There is also the trump-card argument from earlier in the series that comes with this being a Minecraft roleplay -- which is that there are countless ruins just like this one. I know you might want to avoid pulling that card repeatedly to make the discussions more interesting, but that's also the only thing that validates the "story I want to tell"-type arguments. I looked up the demolition you cited as precedent, and my first impressions are that it weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. The Frankish Tower appears to have had significant historical value, and appears to have been demolished for political reasons. Nearly all of the arguments I've seen in favor of the demolition all boil down to it being a foreign addition, while the arguments I've seen in opposition were often citing actual historical value. The demolition of the Frankish Tower strikes me as a major stain on archeology. And I'd like to make clear that the reason I care so much about this is that this series purports to be firmly grounded in real archeological practice, so this moment in the video paints a picture of real archeology that, to me, is rather unsettling.
There are countless other examples out there of this being done. The Weatherills buildings at Chaco come to mind. These are intrusive, modern structures that are not original nor are they indicative of the original inhabitants buildings, AND they have destroyed parts of the structures.
@@daskalosBCE As best as I can tell, the Weatherill Trading Post was only 56 years old at time of demolition -- new enough that living people would've seen it put up. That makes it easy to say that it's not a significant part of the site's history. You seem to be taking for granted the idea that those added structures in the game are similarly modern, but even though it's probably easy to argue that, I think it's important to actually make the argument, especially since this series is to an extent representing the attitudes of the field of archeology. "nor are they indicative of the original inhabitants buildings" is rephrasing one of the arguments that I'm specifically saying is inadequate. Consider this speculative history: the city is built, is inhabited by its original inhabitants for 100 years, is abandoned for 500 years, is inhabited by a new population for 200 years, and is abandoned for 100 years, arriving at the present day. The history of the original inhabitants of the city would be the minority of the site's history in that case, and even though anything built by the second population could easily be deemed "intrusive", it would also represent the majority of the site's history. If you were to say that the additions couldn't possible be older than X years old; or that they otherwise couldn't possibly be indicative of a historically-significant reoccupation or other culturally-significant use of the site; or that the evidence indicates that they were temporary structures by looters and that the only historically-valuable aspect of looting is the basic "who", "when", "where", "what"; I'd just take your word for it. But I think it's still important for series like this to actually say those things explicitly (if they're true) -- again because it's in part representing the attitudes of real archeology.
Your call on removing the towers is one I expect differs from most player restorations - one that should derive from your experience and education.
Good work!
This is a reupload due to an audio glitch. If you want to see the uncut work on the "icebox" building, here it is: th-cam.com/video/WM4xE7ep8NI/w-d-xo.html
Hi Daskalos!
Next episode, or whenever really, could you go over the idea that this site was perhaps intentionally built underground from its beginnings? I am seeing a lot of evidence to suggest it WAS built underground rather than ever on the surface!
At no point in the city do we really ever see any of it buried under dirt, rock or anything else for that matter (other than skulk). We know the site is ancient and has been around a long time, and there is evidence the areas these cities inhabit are not entirely geologically sound based on tuff being present.
All of this to me suggests that the city wasn't built above ground, another example we see of this is that every other ruin we tend to find in minecraft has some degree of being buried... desert temples, underwater ruins, trail ruins (which based on their depth and state of degradation, are almost certainly younger than these ancient cities which should all, or mostly be completely buried by now)
I think it is very possible that this site, by removing the cave roof and surrounding cavern features, has perhaps lost some of the context of its history if it is indeed true that the city was designed and built underground at its establishment.
I'd love to see you cover this possibility and explain what ramifications this could have on the site restoration so far! I doubt there is much real world precedence to go over with this, but if there, is it would also be cool to learn about that!
Thank you!
I am no history buff, nor have I studied much archeology. However, the underground Derinkuyu caves in Turkey may be similar to the Ancient City in Minecraft as a city built solely underground. This is what comes to my mind when I think about the Ancient City.
I don't know who would think it used to be above ground.
It's made of the stuff it's surrounded by, and sometimes seems carved out of the rock itself, like the Tuff.
I think they removed the ceiling specifically to get the maps, and are planning to re-install it afterwards!
I was wondering if you're ever planning on taking a look (listen? :P) at Disc 5, what is possibly the last remaining record created by the inhabitants of the Ancient City.
I love this series so much!
Demolishing the intruder towers definitely needed a stronger argument. The bar for "it has nothing to do with this" should be much higher than "it was added after the fact". To cite a real example: the Connections Museum Seattle has exhibits of telecommunications equipment which have been restored to working order. This to me is a very harmless form of restoration, since equipment from this era is generally in good enough condition that you can determine the historical state of the artifacts, and restore functionality while maintaining that. However, they also partially restored an artifact to its state when first manufactured, and I found this very upsetting. Quite frankly, the changes these machines underwent when they were used represent the *majority* of the historical value -- they represent the history of a wide period, whereas the manufacturer's state represents a single point of history, and these changes also represent unique history, whereas the state at manufacture would have been highly similar between other artifacts of the same model. I view that restoration as a significant reduction in historical value in exchange for showcasing a small part of its history.
Unless you present an argument otherwise, I'm naturally going to be hung up on the possibility that the intruder structures are similar in nature -- representing a chapter in the site's history which could be on par with that of the city's original occupants. I don't think it's *hard* to argue that the towers are historically near-superfluous, but I do think the argument needs to actually be made, and variations of "not original" don't do that.
There is also the trump-card argument from earlier in the series that comes with this being a Minecraft roleplay -- which is that there are countless ruins just like this one. I know you might want to avoid pulling that card repeatedly to make the discussions more interesting, but that's also the only thing that validates the "story I want to tell"-type arguments.
I looked up the demolition you cited as precedent, and my first impressions are that it weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. The Frankish Tower appears to have had significant historical value, and appears to have been demolished for political reasons. Nearly all of the arguments I've seen in favor of the demolition all boil down to it being a foreign addition, while the arguments I've seen in opposition were often citing actual historical value. The demolition of the Frankish Tower strikes me as a major stain on archeology.
And I'd like to make clear that the reason I care so much about this is that this series purports to be firmly grounded in real archeological practice, so this moment in the video paints a picture of real archeology that, to me, is rather unsettling.
There are countless other examples out there of this being done. The Weatherills buildings at Chaco come to mind. These are intrusive, modern structures that are not original nor are they indicative of the original inhabitants buildings, AND they have destroyed parts of the structures.
@@daskalosBCE As best as I can tell, the Weatherill Trading Post was only 56 years old at time of demolition -- new enough that living people would've seen it put up. That makes it easy to say that it's not a significant part of the site's history. You seem to be taking for granted the idea that those added structures in the game are similarly modern, but even though it's probably easy to argue that, I think it's important to actually make the argument, especially since this series is to an extent representing the attitudes of the field of archeology.
"nor are they indicative of the original inhabitants buildings" is rephrasing one of the arguments that I'm specifically saying is inadequate. Consider this speculative history: the city is built, is inhabited by its original inhabitants for 100 years, is abandoned for 500 years, is inhabited by a new population for 200 years, and is abandoned for 100 years, arriving at the present day. The history of the original inhabitants of the city would be the minority of the site's history in that case, and even though anything built by the second population could easily be deemed "intrusive", it would also represent the majority of the site's history.
If you were to say that the additions couldn't possible be older than X years old; or that they otherwise couldn't possibly be indicative of a historically-significant reoccupation or other culturally-significant use of the site; or that the evidence indicates that they were temporary structures by looters and that the only historically-valuable aspect of looting is the basic "who", "when", "where", "what"; I'd just take your word for it. But I think it's still important for series like this to actually say those things explicitly (if they're true) -- again because it's in part representing the attitudes of real archeology.
Huh, I did not know that about the Acropolis! I would enjoy a little real world archeology fact each episode.
19:28 the feels man
Less goo
30 sec
I am chronically online