- This topic has 3 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
Archaeologists think they may have found the remains of Richard III of England during a dig in Leicester. Discovery of Skeleton Puts Richard III in Battle Once Again. If testing determines that they indeed have discovered the king's remains let the controversy about what to do with them now begin. I just find the notion that these could be his remains interesting and if true it shows that archaeology can serve a purpose other than to dig and guess.
I don't share your and Donnie's disdain for archaeology, so I would wouldn't be surprised if this is another good example of what it can do. I think there are good and bad “experts” in every field, but on the whole archaeology is tremendously important to the study of history.
Kind if surprised a military historian wouldn't like archaeology. They are the ones who can find out stuff like what direction the attackers came, where the first shots or arrows were fired, etc. Saw a special on BBC about this. They were showing the defensive capabilities of early medieval fortifications, and archaeologists were able to determine who were the first victims when the forts got attacked. I thought that was pretty cool.
I do not dislike archaeology. I think it is discipline that can teach us a lot. I just think that often archaeologists make claims they cannot support. Artifacts without context really tell us nothing and often they try to make out that a sword found in a field says more than it really does. We have learned a lot from some finds but from others all we have are guesses that we have no way to know if they are correct or not. Pompeii has told us a lot about how the Romans lived but does excavating a small 4,000 year old village in Iraq tell us as much without any type of documentary support such as we have for the lives of the Romans? I think not. I don't dismiss archaeology out of hand as does Donnie as being mere digging but I think their “discoveries” need to be viewed more critically than they are.
I agree that making claims without support is not helpful. I am guessing you are referring to a specific instance of something that you have read about. In my experience, current archaeologists have the same rigorous standards as people in other fields, and so they will not be taken seriously if they don't support their conclusions. I think, also, that archaeology is sometimes all we have to go with if we want to learn about an ancient culture. If there is no documentary evidence telling us about that 4000 year old village in Iraq, archaeology is really the main way that we figure it all out.I will say this: archaeological finds often appear in the popular media because of their "wow" factor. I would not be surprised at all if I was told that the media misrepresents those finds, or makes the stories seem more significant than they are in real life. The media would be far more likely to report on sketchy finds and conclusions than a respected journal would.
I don't think they are not academically rigorous. I just question how much a set of wall foundations, pot sherds, and a fire pit can really tell us about the way people lived. When you get right down to it, they are guessing an awful lot of the time.
Aren't you talking about anthropology now?
No, that would be digging up and studying the bones of pre-historic man.
Not only. Anthropologists study cultures and how they lived. Archaeologists dig up stuff and leave the interpretation to the historians (or should). Anthropologists act like god and attempt to tell us how a certain people lived.
How does an anthropologist study the culture of pre-historic civilization? Wouldn't the study of modern humans properly be sociology?
It's not just pre-history they study. Cultural anthropologists study different cultures, past and present. Check out that Human Terrain System program they did in Iraq. That was mainly run and manned by anthropologists. But I think you're proving a point. Anthropology = sociology and they are both crap..or tend to go there often (especially when it comes to religion). When I took my anthro class, I was interested in the basics only. Once they started getting in depth and coming up with these insanely crazy theories, that's when I knew it was garbage. They claim monkeys fearing lighting is where human religion evolved from. Yeah, whatever. ::)
Check out that Human Terrain System program they did in Iraq. That was mainly run and manned by anthropologists.
I used that system and it was garbage, but it made the multiculturalists feel good about themselves.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
