Nowadays it’s a big sport, even university degrees. Lots of interest in the past. Were the ancient Greeks at it as well? The Egyptians before the christian era? When did this start? Or has it always been?
According to thisit’s not that old really…
The science of archaeology grew out of the older multi-disciplinary study known as antiquarianism. Antiquarians studied history with particular attention to ancient artefacts and manuscripts, as well as historical sites. Antiquarianism focused on the empirical evidence that existed for the understanding of the past, encapsulated in the motto of the 18th-century antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, “We speak from facts not theory”. Tentative steps towards the systematization of archaeology as a science took place during the Enlightenment era in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.
the 19th (and the later 18th century) brought forth various ‘gentlemen amateurs’ who had the leisure and the money to make excavations (or more accurately to hire workmen to dig under their supervision). Many of their finds were poorly recorded by modern standards. Some verged on treasure hunting.
I think it goes back further than that. Some of the Roman emperors liked to collect curiosities of all sorts including Ancient Egyptian artifacts, and there were expeditions to Jerusalem and Bethlehem to look for the True Cross and other items associated with Jesus. Of course none of this was methodical or scientific, but it showed that they had a curiosity about the past.
The Sphinx is thought to be much older than the Egyptians. They would have unearthed it from the sand and made repairs.
Theres still much confusion over the actual age of the Sphinx. Scientists are still analyzing the wear patterns on its surface.
As Mel Brooks said: “Ooh…”
The Sphinx is the world’s oldest archeological mystery. Its head has been been altered so many times that the original form is long forgotten.
much more on the Sphinx.
It seems likely that sparked similar interest in other cultures to examine their past buildings and monuments.
But, without the science, is it really archaeology? It sounds more like antiquing–collecting things from the past–rather than trying to learn from them.
I guess there was a transition from what was little more than curiosity collecting, treasure hunts and grave robbing to an academic discipline at around 1800. An education based around Classical Greek probably had a lot to do with it.
Schliemann and his search for Troy began modern archeology. He’s criticized today for using destructive methods. But he did pioneer the modern scientific approach.
He was a bit of a showman. :Photographing his wife in the jewelry from Troy. But it helped spark interest in the study of antiquity.
I seem to recall the Romans being strongly influenced by lost Greek treasures that were excavated… Laocoon comes to mind. That would seem to be exactly what we call archaeology, no?
When the first hunter gatherers found an abandoned camp site.
Perhaps that’s too glib. And may not fit within the definition of archeology.
I don’t think the Romans ever excavated the Laocoön.
Pliny simply notes that it stood in the palace of Emperor Titus, that it was awesome, that the artists were named such-and-such, etc.
The famous excavation of Laocoön happened much, much later - in the sixteenth century.
Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV who reigned around 1400 BC claimed he fell asleep near the Sphinx, then covered up to its neck with sand, dreamed he would be Pharaoh, and when he became it, he cleared the sand and restored the Sphinx.
That’s restoration rather than archeology. As has been mentioned already, archeology proper is a rather modern invention.
Got it in one.
And yet, even with an understanding of scientific methods and the importance and fragility of finds, those jokers still did things that’d make you weep. For example, last year I ran into an account of one such amateur antiquitarian from around the mid-19th who was present when the folks of his village dredged up a few dozen very old medieval swords and scraps of armour from the nearby river. But they were all rusty and “didn’t look all that impressive”, so he advised they just sell them to the nearest scrapyard to be melted for slag. Which they did.
Considering how frigging rare swords (or any medieval metal artifact, really) from before the 15th century are, I wanted to go back in time and punch that dude in the cock.
(In case you’re wondering why the rarity : because the Middle Ages as a whole were a very thrifty period and people would melt old crap down to make new better stuff with. Including old stuff buried in mounds from grand-grand-grand-grand-grandaddy’s time. Easier than hacking new metal from a mine, and it tidies up the place. So the farther back you’re looking at, the fewer stuff still exists. That’s why we have like a billion suits of fancy XVth century armour, but good luck finding a hauberk from the First Crusade even though they were ubiquitous then.)
Well, they might have, you know.
Shit.
It was excavated early in the Renaissance and inspired a number of artists then. I muddled that into more general knowledge that the Romans admired, collected and in some cases excavated Greek works.
So then, the Romans did excavate it – just not Ancient Romans 
vaguely dismissive Mediterranean hand gesture 
So if folks from various epochs of time were not really interested in an analysis of the whys and wherefores, etc. of previous civilizations, except perhaps as plunder… or to substantiate religious dogma…
(I recall reading about various ancient structures/monuments which were taken apart by locals to provide building materials for their homes)
What is it that accounts for the modern interest?
In my mind, this: People, human beings, seem to have this same thing… they live blindly as youths and only in older age do they begin to reminisce and seek to examine the past, perhaps with some objectivity, or at least more than they once had.