Future Archaeology...Just Doing My Part

I'm going to start this post off with a little scenario that I've cooked up, so just sit back and enjoy where my mediocre story-telling skills are taking you:

"Well, Jeremiah, what do you think it is?" "Um, well maybe its MM1a (Middle Modern 1a), professor?" "Jeremiah, do you read anything for this class? Of course it isn't MM, that's hundreds of years off. Clearly this falls into the EI2 (Early Ikea 2) time period. You can tell from the simplicity of the design and decoration, and the unique Swedish fabric of the ware. Yes, this is definitely Early Ikea." "But Professor, aren't all EI finds suppose to come in groups of eight?" "You should know by now that's a misconception. People thousands of years ago could have shared, or been very clumsy- that's a possible explanation for why we only have a partial set from this site." "Ooooh, I see. Is EI very rare?" "Not really, EI1 is pretty limited to finds only in Scandinavia, but we find EI2 all over the planet."

This dialogue came from some musing about what future archaeologists are going to name our pottery types (you know, how now we have EH- Early Helladic- and things like that, and how archaeologists now use types/styles of pottery to determine dates). Thinking about the pottery in my cupboards, I figure future archaeologists will be forced to name our period the Ikea Age.

Now, of course, future historians might look through that ancient moldering archive called the world wide web (since we all now that future people will be using a bigger, better, faster version of the internet, probably sponsored by Google) to look back and try to find information on our strange and distance culture. Who knows? Maybe even future academics might write their dissertations on the pervasiveness of Early Ikea 2 ware (of course, now I want to ask future archaeologists, "What does Late Ikea ware look like?! I want to know!"). Or not. I could be way off here. Maybe some time in the not-to-distant future we stop using ceramics altogether and future archaeologists will just call our time The End of Pottery...duh duh duuuunhn. What? It could happen!

A Solution for Starving Artists

Artists aren't well known for their overwhelming monetary success. Rather, they're more notorious for being impecunious (I'm studying for the GRE- that's one of the words I've learned). Today's general method of dealing with starving artists is somewhere between overall disregard and parental assistance (or artist communes). Like the last post, I dug up a cultural gem while researching (JSTOR fun time) recently. Some social welfare geniuses in France circa 1849 came up with the idea of starting a lottery for their benefit:

Bulletin of the American Art-Union, Gleanings from Foreign Journals (1849):

Lottery in aid of poor artists in France

A lottery has been established to aid the suffering circumstances of the numerous body of young and less talented artists, who have been plunged into adversity by the unsettled state of the country during the past year. It consists of 100,000 tickets, at two francs fifty centimes each, making a capital of 250,000 francs, to be expended in pictures, drawings, &c. There will be 3,000 prizes, varying in value from 5,000 francs to 10 francs each. Every prize-holder above the sum of 100 will receive with his picture the receipt of the artist for the same. The choice of works is made by a committee, as they will be better able to appreciate the necessities and ability of the candidates who desire to avail themselves of these means to sell their works.

I really like this idea. The artists are working, producing art, and the lottery helps connect them with potential patron. Plus, the tickets are only two and a half francs. (I'm really not sure how much that is, since I've never seen or used a franc...still two and a half of them can't be that much right?) Are there things around like this now? I would way rather enter in an art lottery than the lottery-lottery. No one wins the real lottery. Especially not me or other people I've ever met. But if there's only 100,000 tickets, there's a legitimate probability that I could win one of the 3,000 prizes (I would know, since I've been studying probability and other math I haven't done in years, for the sake of the GRE).