gladiator, prisoner, democracy, truth

Last week on NPR I hear a story about English archaeologists discovering decapitated skeletons that they think might be gladiators.

Or possibly prisoners.

There is, chief executive of the York Archaeological Trust, John Walker, says, really no way to tell either way.  So, how to answer the question?  Put it up for a vote!

That was the plan.  The website is www.headlessromans.co.uk, and if you can figure out if they've got the voting stuff up someplace, let me know.

Is democracy really the way to get to the truth?  No.  But I love that they can use it as a vehicle to teach people about archaeology--about the art of science.  Because these kinds of answerless questions require the kinds of thinking that our new information age requires.  Facts can be gleaned instantly  now--encyclopedic knowledge is no longer the possession of value that it once was.  What is of value now is the ability to analyse facts, to make connections, to decide what is relevant, to understand relationships.  And when you go learn about the facts of these decapitated skeletons, you'll see the process conductors use every time they study a score.

The facts are the same for every conductor.  Lines and dots on the page represent pitches and rhythms.  But the composer's intention?  That's not on the page.  That's in our understanding, in our perception.  A great conductor doesn't just reproduce notes and rhythms, but find meaning in them, and brings that meaning to life so that it touches us when we hear it.

Is that truth?  Sort of.  If the conductor can convince us, can make it real for us, then yes, I think that counts as truth.  Is it objective factual truth?  If we summon Beethoven from beyond the grave, will he say "yes, that's exactly what I meant!"  Or if we take a poll of the audience--or of critics!--will everyone agree that this was the way that piece should be performed?

Does it matter?