Three issues will be discussed in this article – the castle of Amsterdam (1994-1995), the mikveh of Venlo and the King’s tomb of Middelburg – where initially a tangible archaeological find seems to support a spectacular historical theory. On closer inspection, the combination of archaeological and historical sources has not rendered conclusive interdisciplinary evidence, but only generated castles in the air, fairy tales or at least a version of the past that fails to do justice to both disciplines.
These issues are reason to highlight four methodological rules of thumb concerning historical-archaeological research. In order to prevent collective disillusionment, the most self-evident is to stay sober and down-to-earth and not to get stuck in a stage of enthusiastic intoxication or haze of ‘historical sensation’. Particularly in the case of fascinating historical-archaeological challenges this is a pitfall into which even very experienced researchers risk falling...
Show moreThree issues will be discussed in this article – the castle of Amsterdam (1994-1995), the mikveh of Venlo and the King’s tomb of Middelburg – where initially a tangible archaeological find seems to support a spectacular historical theory. On closer inspection, the combination of archaeological and historical sources has not rendered conclusive interdisciplinary evidence, but only generated castles in the air, fairy tales or at least a version of the past that fails to do justice to both disciplines.
These issues are reason to highlight four methodological rules of thumb concerning historical-archaeological research. In order to prevent collective disillusionment, the most self-evident is to stay sober and down-to-earth and not to get stuck in a stage of enthusiastic intoxication or haze of ‘historical sensation’. Particularly in the case of fascinating historical-archaeological challenges this is a pitfall into which even very experienced researchers risk falling.
Show less
