Why is Archaeology Important? Let’s find out from Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 6! [Spoiler Alert]

By: Salome Mega

 

This article will discuss the sixth and last episode of season 8 of the tv show Game of Thrones (S8E6). Released in April 2019, this last season raised numerous fan critiques, notably concerning the choice of Bran the Broken as King of the Six Kingdoms.

But, you’re probably wondering why such a subject ends up being discussed on this forum dedicated to archaeology— and Gallina archaeology in particular. Here is why: as a student in the field, I quite enjoyed the ending that was proposed by the writers of the series. Why? Because the monologue of Tyrion Lannister in front of the assembly of lords and ladies of Westeros to propose Bran the Broken as King can be interpreted as a tribute to the importance of History and Archaeology to understand our present and lead our future.

Original picture by HBO

To refresh your memory, I joined to this post the link to the scene and the transcript of the monologue of Tyrion:

https://youtu.be/moM00oXhmes

“Tyrion Lannister: I have had nothing to do but think these past few weeks, about our bloody history, about the mistakes we’ve made. What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags? (shaking his head) Stories. There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. And who has a better story than Bran the Broken? The boy who fell from a high tower and lived. He knew he’d never walk again, so he learned to fly. He crossed beyond the wall, a crippled boy, and became the three-eyed raven. He is our memory, the keeper of all our stories: the wars, weddings, births, massacres, famines, our triumphs, our defeats; our past. Who better to lead us into the future?”

 Tyrion suggests Bran should be king because the powers of the three-eyed raven enable him to see into the past of Westeros, and into the future as well. Bran is thus the guardian of the History of the people of Westeros, and is according to Tyrion the most fit to lead thanks to his knowledge of the past and his visions of the future. Tyrion thus values History as a guide for the present and the future of his world. He sees the absolute historical knowledge of Bran as a way to avoid repeating mistakes that have been made in the past. Tyrion also considers History as the only binding agent between humans. Even though the houses of Westeros are often in open conflict, they are all in a way linked to one another by their history: be it by “the wars, weddings, births” etc.

Much of what Tyrion argues for in this monologue can be applied in our world. Even if no one has the supernatural power of seeing the past, our History is still accessible to us through oral histories (knowledge of events that occurred in one community and that is passed down verbally for generations), written histories, and archaeological data. Written histories are translated and studied by historians. Archaeological data are obtained by archaeologists when excavating and are interpreted in the most objective way possible. What distinguishes historians and archaeologists is that the former study written texts and imagery left by a culture or describing a culture, while the latter study the material remains of past human societies. Together, historians and archaeologists aim at reconstituting the past in the most accurate and objective way possible. Thanks to the knowledge maintained in oral histories, texts, and archaeological interpretations, we can now look into some of our past (almost) like the three-eyed raven. Even though we cannot visualize past events as well as Bran does, we at least know of their existence.

Archaeology is therefore important as it enables us to access our past and retrace our History. It is essential for human societies to know about their past for the following reasons.

First, History is an important element in the building of identities. A common ancestry or History can provide a sense of belonging to a community and can be supplemented by an attachment to a place. National identities, for instance, are often built on a historical narrative that is considered to be shared by a large number of citizens. Such narratives can exclude regional or local identities to favor social and cultural cohesion within the nation by omitting events in the narrative. Such omissions can be pointed out by scholars or clarified by new archaeological research. This way, local communities can claim their past and reaffirm their identity.

Second, like Tyrion argued, History unites people. The oral histories, written histories, and archaeological data have helped us retrace the history of our species from the origins, through different cultural stages and up until nowadays. As human beings, we are defined by our past and united by it beyond our cultural differences. Keeping the record of our past is a way to show our existence in this world. Actually, this is well illustrated in S8 of Game of Thrones when the Night King targets solely Bran to erase any record of the History of the people of Westeros and therefore of their existence in their world.

Third, the mistakes we have made in our past can be avoided by learning from them. That is what Tyrion proposes when he suggests Bran should be king. He considers that his knowledge of the past makes him more able to find solutions to their contemporary problems. This would also be the case in our world. The study of past societies and of the systems they put in place to overcome external and internal pressures can help us find new ways to approach the major problems of this century (climate change, overpopulation, increasing globalization, large population migrations, the rise of far-right politicians, and on and on and on). The key to the future is found in the past. It is possible to “break the wheel” by avoiding repeating the same mistakes over and over. And who better to lead us into the future than History?

Why do archaeologists ask questions?

By: Olivier van Rooij

 

Simple question right? To gain information about the past, of course. Why? Well, because it interests us. But, why?

This is called the “why” game. You can keep asking “why”, “why”, “but, why” after everything someone says, quickly spiraling down into the irritating, infinite chain of back-and-forth questions and answers. Kids do it all of the time . . .

. . . and adults should do it more often.

Okay, maybe don’t do that, it’s annoying . . . but, we already kind of do! We just use academic writing and intellectual thought as a facade for this “why” game.

So why do we ask these questions? Like, who cares. Well, why not? We ask questions because we can. It’s what makes us human. It sets us aside from any other species in the animal kingdom.

There are apes — the species that are known to have some close common ancestors — that have been taught to use sign language to communicate with us. And while they can do things like answer questions and even express thought and emotion, they have never once been observed to ask a question.

Asking questions is something that is unique to humans. But it doesn’t only make us unique from any other species, it also makes us unique as individuals. People express themselves with things like the clothes they wear or the music they listen to, but can also do so with their knowledge, their interests, the things they know about, the stuff they like, the questions they ask.

As much as these characteristics can emphasize someone’s unique identity, they can also bring people with these same characteristics together. This unified group of people will have created a group identity, maybe even without them realizing it.

During my fieldwork with the Gallina Landscape of History Project, I realized that the distinct group identity of isolation and non-conformism to other Ancestral Puebloans of the historic people we are researching may have been the outcome of a question, as well. The process of separation may have initiated simply from a question that could have gone along the lines of “Why should we conform?”.

So why do archaeologists ask questions? Why are we so fascinated by the past? It’s because we like it, because we are like it. Humans from the past and present are in many ways not very different from one another. The above question that the Gallina may have asked doesn’t sound very much different for the question archaeologist may be asking “Why didn’t the Gallina conform?”. While we will never actually know what exactly the past people’s intentions and what went on in their minds in many ways asking questions may bring us closer to those who have lived before us as they did the exact same thing themselves.

The Tale of Two Metates – a Preservation Story?

By: Jaye Smith

 

When involved in any project, I am reminded about a statement Dr. Raymond Thompson made in a past article of Glyphs (Arizona Archaeological and History Society 2015) in regard to the differences and similarities between looters, collectors, avocational and professional archaeologists.  Dr. Thompson stated that we are all “pot hunters” in one way or another, with the looters being those who excavate simply for greed and prosperity, without regard for preservation or research.

Dr. Raymond Thompson (https://www.az-arch-and-hist.org/2010/05/speaker-to-be-announced/p1020444-2-2/)

Currently, in Feature 4 of the site being excavated during the Gallina Landscapes of History Project conducted by Dr. Lewis Borck in northwestern New Mexico, we are faced with at least three previous phases of survey and excavation – two by “professional archaeologists” in the 1960s and 1970s and one more recently by obvious “looters” with limited knowledge of the Gallina-area culture and architecture.  One of my tasks this field season was to continue clearing fill dirt and debris that was a combination of backfill from archaeological excavations and discarded looter dirt.

When artifacts are encountered, it is unclear whether they actually originated in Feature 4 or if they are from nearby adjacent looted features and discarded into Feature 4 by the looters (or even previous archaeologists) just to get “the stuff” out of the way of their careless digging.  As I continued clearing this mish-mash of fill away from the beautifully plastered north wall of Feature 4, two large, flat metates were encountered on the prepared-surface floor that would have been underneath a bench that was destroyed during previous activity. This was in the northwest corner of the unit house.

 

 

The western most metate

The eastern most metate.

The metates were placed end-to-end next to the north wall.  The first metate encountered shows use-wear and was placed wear-side down.  The second metate, found closest to the northwest corner, appears to be unused.  Laying parallel to the second metate was a large two-handed mano, again placed use-wear side down in soft fill consisting of loose dirt and burned corn.  While we can’t say for certain that these artifacts were originally found in Feature 4, the uncovering of these objects do raise many questions as to what their positioning can tell us in regard to past desires to preserve and protect:

1) Did the early professional excavators uncover these objects in Feature 4 and carefully place them in a way so that they would be protected and preserved?

2) Why didn’t the early professional excavators collect the objects? The condition of all three artifacts are pristine, and the shape and size of the metates might indicate they were for uses other than grinding corn and thus unusual for the Gallina area.

3) Did the looters “miss” these objects?  The nearby looters “pit” is very obvious, as it dug through the flagstone floor of Feature 4 for about 40 centimeters. One could reason that if the looters had encountered these artifacts, they would have a) taken them; or b) discarded them carelessly outside of the unit house, thus causing a considerable amount of damage to the objects. Or, did the looters have a momentary desire to preserve these objects by carefully placing them against the wall, covering them up and leaving them behind?

4) Could these artifacts be in their original positions in Feature 4, placed by the early inhabitants in a way to honor and revere their uses?

Early professional survey and excavation notes on Feature 4 are rare, with little to no information given as to what was collected or the basis for the early excavation platforms.  While this can be frustrating when working in a feature that has been previously excavated and then looted afterwards, we can be very thankful for the care that was taken by others to preserve this part of the archaeological record.  I am privileged to be able to share in that part of the story, and know the Tale of the Two Metates (both will undergo starch grain analysis for the project) will continue to tell us more in the future about Gallina culture, the peoples of the past who made this breathtaking region their home, and the previous “pot-hunters” who were here before us.