You know...

[hmpf]

I'm actually a really crappy archaeology student. I just have absolutely *no* clue what I'm doing. It's a bit sad to contemplate, really, because a) I'm not *actually* stupid, and b) I'm far too old, and far too advanced in my studies, to change subjects again.

Okay, I said I shouldn't post. Probably true. But I need to vent, because the frustration is killing me. So. I'm reading these texts. I'm supposed to draw information about the beginnings of metalworking in the eneolithic period in certain parts of Slovakia from it. The texts are short, and very dense. *Extremely* dense. The shortest is essentially a list of prehistoric cultures and cultural groups of the period in Slovakia and its adjoining countries. The geographical attribution is... vague. Especially for someone who does not have a very precise idea of Slovakian geography. There are no maps included. Of course, I have a map of Slovakia, but since a lot of the geographical attributions aren't of the kind you're going to find on a normal map, it's not much use. But even if the geography weren't as much of a mystery... Oh, I dunno, I think I'll have to give you an excerpt from my notes, although probably only tryfanstone and a certain Mystery Reader of this journal will be able to appreciate their uselessness. Anyway, here it is:



(Note: No, I don't know 99% of these groups and cultures, either.)

Early Eneolithic, older phase:

Eastern Slovakia: Lucky group of the Tiszapolgar culture
South-western Slovakia: Brodzany-Nitra group (phase Lengyel III)
Eastern Hungary: four local Tiszapolgar groups
Transdanubia: no Lengyel III
Eastern Hungary, Slovenia: Balaton-Lasinja culture, contemporary with Vinca-Plocnik and Krivodol-Salcuta in the Balkans

Early Eneolithic, younger phase:

Eastern Slovakia: two phases of the Bodrogkerestur and Laznany groups, also Hunyadihalom finds --> southern connections (Salcuta IV)
North-east Hungary: two phases of Bodrogkerestur, in period B also Hunyadihalom
Southern Slovakia/central Slovakian mountains: Ludanice group (Lengyel IV contemporary)

Final part of the younger phase of the early Eneolithic (Epilengyel period):

Ludanice replaced by (Furchenstichkeramik); towards the Danube progress of Vajska-Hunyadihalom group

Middle Eneolithic:

Cultural development united in Baden culture; oldest phase: Boleraz group in the western Carpathian basin, southern Transdanubia, Theiss area
Later split into Theiss and Danube branches of the Baden culture; local groups
End of period: Kostolac cultura (only in Hungary)

Transitional period/end of Baden culture:

Bosaca group, Kostolac culture (Iza-Michailovka-III type), Vucedol culture

Late Eneolithic:

Slovakia, south-west and south-east: Kosihy-Caka group, south-west also Somogyar-Vinkovci culture
Slovakia, north and east: Nyirseg-Zatin group
Spreading of Danubian and Balkans influences
(Schnurkeramik)


So, I sit here with my notes, and I wonder: What the *hell* am I supposed to do with that stuff? In two weeks I'm supposed to *talk* about this to my fellow students, so what am I going to tell them? Is there *anything* valuable in this for them? If I just throw all those names at them - unpronounceable names they've most likely never heard before (neither have I) - they'll fall asleep or at least forget about it in less than five minutes, and I couldn't blame them - I would, too.

So what do I do? Look up every single one of those cultures and groups and whatnot, compile typical inventories, chronology, cultural connections, and drown them in details they'll quite probably never need again - or if they do, won't remember from my talk, because hearing something like that once, in passing, isn't enough *by far*?

What is the fucking use in that?

And what am I supposed to draw from this for *myself*? What do I learn from this? That Slovakian place names are a hazard to your tongue and keyboard? Thanks, but I think I suspected that already...

Whenever I try to work on this damn paper, it feels as if my internal computer is about to crash. Too much information to process, and too little of it seems to be of any use in relation to what I'm supposed to talk about.

Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious. Maybe all the above *actually* isn't relevant, and I was supposed to find something a lot more useful in those texts. Or maybe the above *is* useful and I just lack the archaeologist's eye to see it. Anyway, it's frelling frustrating, and it makes me feel like a total beginner without a clue. I wish actually asking my prof about all this wouldn't make me feel like an idiot. I wish I were back in Birmingham - there, I didn't feel like an idiot when I asked fundamental stuff like that.

Comments

Well, movement and change is what it's all about, all the time, really.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Not just this paper but all of archaeology.

It's just that - at least to me, but maybe I *am* a bit stupid, seeing as how most of you guys seem to be able to make more sense of this than I am ;-) - the list of cultures above does not tell me a whole lot about that. If I started researching each of these cultures and then comparing them - okay, *then* we'd be getting somewhere. But that's a bit beyond the scope of a thirty minute talk and a twenty page paper. So what I'm left with is a list of names that don't mean anything to me or my listeners. If I knew more about this, I could at least decide which of these are *really* important, and look into those a bit more...

(Actually, I just bit the bullet and asked the assistant involved in the seminar about this whole culture thing and she gave me a few pointers, so I *may* be getting somewhere now, finally... let's hope so.)

Oh, and as for all those 'why' questions... those are the questions we don't dare ask in archaeology. ;-) Well, most of the time. Certainly not in this case - there simply isn't enough time for that. This is merely about the 'what' and 'how', not about the 'why'.