- This topic has 3 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
Take a look at this story:
ARCHAEOLOGISTS in Jerusalem are competing to unearth artifacts pointing to the ancient city's Jewish past, which are used to justify Israel's claim to all of it as the indivisible capital of the modern Jewish state. But critics say some of 'finds' are really just bending science to prove a 'Biblical heritage' that is open to dispute.
Digging up controversy Would you consider this to be similar to Schliemann's course of action?
This is why I don't follow Archaeology or Anthropology. Money is involved in financing digs, and often the financier has an agenda for which the money is to be applied. Even though I might be sympathetic in this case, it's still wrong, and Archaeology will suffer because of it.
That's a good point. I didn't really think about that before, but I suppose it is a good thing to look to where the money is coming from when considering the finds in a dig. I would say that if governments are involved with universities in digs there is less likelihood of bias. On the whole, I don't think there is a lot of bias involved in modern archaeology. What would be the point? Yes, I can see where issues of bias are more likely in places where property ownership is in dispute (e.g. Israel), but in other places - Greece, Italy, etc. - I think people are legitimately in it for scholarly advancement (not including looters, of course).
I'll never knock archaeology because half (or more of) the stuff we know is from their findings. Now an archaeologist with an agenda is another story.All I want to know is what did they find, where they found it, who did it, and what it means. Just show the evidence and we'll take it from there.
Just show the evidence and we'll take it from there.
What do you mean by this? ???
I was wondering the same thing. Why can't historians find the "evidence" themselves? I know several who conduct their own digs, and they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
I was wondering the same thing. Why can't historians find the "evidence" themselves? I know several who conduct their own digs, and they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
That's interesting, though I can't imagine they're doing the digs without any supervision of archaeologists, or without having had some training. I would think they would want to know protocol for conducting a dig simply because it makes it easier to preserve finds and to know what to do.
I was wondering the same thing. Why can't historians find the "evidence" themselves? I know several who conduct their own digs, and they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
That's interesting, though I can't imagine they're doing the digs without any supervision of archaeologists, or without having had some training. I would think they would want to know protocol for conducting a dig simply because it makes it easier to preserve finds and to know what to do.
My professor, Dr. Wayne Lee, goes to Greece annually to dig. He probably goes with archaeologists, but he is trained. He now teaches at the University of North Carolina, so I don't know if he still goes or not. Even though he is a U.S. historian, Greek history is his hobby.
Funny – just this morning I was at a lecture given by a well-respected archaeologist (he works mostly with Greek underwater archaeology, but has done terrestrial work as well) from your school. I wonder if this professor and your professor go together on digs.
they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
I'll say the same thing. 😀 What do you mean by this? ??? If they know what they're doing, then obviously they are trained in archaeology.What I meant is that the archaeologist finds the stuff, and his job is to properly document it. The historian will take it from there. If the historian found it himself then he is either lucky or a trained archaeologist himself. My comment was actually more in response to Donnie's comment "This is why I don't follow Archaeology". I guess I just can't understand why one would have an attitude like that because I think archaeology is important to history, especially ancient history. If I went to URI, I would double major. But I don't go there, so oh well.
they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
I'll say the same thing. 😀 What do you mean by this? ??? If they know what they're doing, then obviously they are trained in archaeology.What I meant is that the archaeologist finds the stuff, and his job is to properly document it. The historian will take it from there. If the historian found it himself then he is either lucky or a trained archaeologist himself. My comment was actually more in response to Donnie's comment "This is why I don't follow Archaeology". I guess I just can't understand why one would have an attitude like that because I think archaeology is important to history, especially ancient history. If I went to URI, I would double major. But I don't go there, so oh well.
Archaeology is okay, but it is a field hijacked by agendas and crackpots. Anthropology is just "We are here to prove evolution and nanny nanny boo boo to anything else."
What I meant is that the archaeologist finds the stuff, and his job is to properly document it. The historian will take it from there.
Not to step on any toes here, but in my opinion, I don't think that is quite the case. I think that archaeologists can well draw conclusions from his finds - actually, any good archaeologist would draw such conclusions based on his finds. I don't think that the archaeologist is the slave to the historian. I think these are two disciplines that are equal in stature yet with different focuses, and they share much of the same material.
Archaeology is okay, but it is a field hijacked by agendas and crackpots.
But do you think that it has been hijacked any more than history has? Surely any discipline can be hijacked - this present thread even mentions the ideologically-driven dig in Jerusalem. I guess my awe of archaeology has grown lately since I just finished a 36-lecture series on DVD about the history of classical archaeology (Greece and Rome). It was fascinating stuff and makes me want to go on a dig...maybe even underwater.
