This summer in Atlanta athletes, officials, spectators, promoters, and reporters will once again witness the spectacle of the modern Olympics. Many will assume that the modern games are a true reflection of the ancient ones, that the events and ceremonies and the ideology of universal brotherhood and amateurism recall the Olympics of Greece's golden age. They would be surprised to learn that the ancient contests were quite different from our own, and that Greek athletes were not amateurs.
A generation ago the study of ancient sport focused on antiquarian concerns--how Greeks threw the discus or how far they could jump. Glossing over the violent, erotic, and materialistic aspects of Greek sport, and downplaying abuses and opportunism, scholars simply accepted idealistic notions about who these athletes were and why they competed. Now, using a variety of evidence, we are demythologizing the ancient Olympics. Excavations at Olympia and at the sites of other games have led to a new understanding of athletic participation and the role of spectators in ancient sport. Archaeology and art history, especially epigraphy and the reexamination of vase paintings, have allowed us to test and revise ancient literary accounts of how athletes trained, worshiped, competed, won, and celebrated, and how they were motivated, rewarded, and honored.
Note this quote at the beginning: You say, "I want to win at Olympia." ...If you do, you will have to obey instructions, eat according to regulations, keep away from desserts, exercise on a fixed schedule at definite hours, in both heat and cold; you must not drink cold water nor can you have a drink of wine whenever you want.
So, really, nothing's changed that much, except that now we pay personal trainers $65 an hour to tell us the same thing.
Shroud update Turin Shroud Back Side Shows Face
The ghostly image of a man's face has emerged on the back side of the Turin Shroud, the piece of linen long believed to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, according to new digital imaging processing techniques.
The discovery adds new complexity to one of the most controversial relics in Christendom, venerated by many Catholics as the proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave and dismissed by some scientists as a brilliant medieval fake.
Ethical issues haunt testing of famous remains
You may take secrets with you to the grave, but it's getting harder to keep them there.
With the advent of powerful genetic tests, there's nothing to stop someone from teasing medical secrets from a lock of hair or bit of bone.
Now a group from Chicago is drawing up what may be the first set of ethical guidelines for biohistorical analysis. It will address, among other things, whether scientists should be allowed to test the remains of historical figures only after getting the consent of their descendants.
I tend to side with Shapiro who sees no real need for official guidelines, though it is apparent that the ethics of dealing with human remains has been evolving. This is a fluid time in which the discipline (anthropology generally, archaeology and physical anthropology specifically) is beginning to reassess its role as the sole arbiter of what is to be done with human remains. Much in North America has to do with NAGPRA and the need to address Amerindian concerns over burials. As the Kennewick Man case shows, this is still a controversial area, as tribal affiliation -- and even the "Native American-ness" of very old remains -- can often be difficult to assess. My hope is that through legislative and legal means, as well as the simple give and take and consultation that takes place in individual cases locally, we will arrive at some sort of consensus regarding what to do with these things.
Critics slam Executive plan to strip ancient monuments
HUNDREDS of Scotland’s ancient monuments are to be stripped of their protected status in a controversial move by the Executive.
Almost 800 archaeological sites considered until now to be of national importance will be dropped from Historic Scotland’s official schedule.
The change follows a decision by the Executive to restrict protection to monuments which meet new criteria of "cultural significance" and "spiritual value".
Critics have attacked the move, accusing the Executive of "betraying Scotland’s heritage" and clearing the way for developers to build on protected sites.
Scotland has a host of significant archaeological treasures, including locations dating from prehistoric times.