+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Romano British - Is there really such a thing? (/showthread.php?tid=4102)
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - Jack - 10th October 2011
P Prentice Wrote:except that you have to take into consideration the sigmaC13 relative to VPDB .
and use the correct calibration curve.
P Prentice Wrote:and the fact that you might not be within the same 95% - given there is another 5% not reflected in the range
................
No that doesn't follow. Statistically there is a 95% chance that the 'true' date falls within the range in both cases.
NB (hint)....I'm not saying that the 'true' dates are the same......I'm saying the two results are the same. But that's the rub with measuring something scientifically..........its all in the errors and levels of confidence
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - P Prentice - 10th October 2011
its always a mistake to confuse archaeology with science
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - Dinosaur - 10th October 2011
Seems unfair that we still have to read all the science books though - anyone know what an 'esker' is or will I have to actually read that section.... :face-crying:
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - GnomeKing - 10th October 2011
Science is just as powerful a basis for Archaeology as Public Interest - don't knock it! ("An esker is a long winding ridge of stratified sand and gravel")
but just to keep on :face-topic:
@Kel -
" ice and that"
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - Dinosaur - 10th October 2011
Cheers, the Swale-Ure Washlands book isn't such a gripping read that I really want to read the whole thing, would rather skip to the archaeologically relevent bits, already know more about gravel than I'd ever really wanted.... :face-approve:
Actually, having got into archaeology from the scientific end of things, I'd rather have rather more science/more scientific approach, but of course most of what we do on site isn't repeatable (and when it is there isn't any budget...) and it's a right pain having to wait decades to get another dead viking or chariot burial or whatever to play with...and where there is the possibility to test theories/results there's never any funding for it (see my last post on the 'Millet' thread)
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - GnomeKing - 10th October 2011
Fret not Fret not about Repeatability .... (did i say that?)
This represents only one (mainstream/contemporary) brand of Science.
All Natural Sciences derive from observation, documentation, 'synthesis'.
(Testability is so, like, anally Newtonian! pah!!)
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - Dinosaur - 10th October 2011
But always good to be able to show the doubters - there wouldn't have been all the fuss over the Roman helmet if the guy had been able to go out and find another one, to take a recent example, or he'd found two the first time so that people could have watched the second one being shined up like the first (and handy for spares!)
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - GnomeKing - 10th October 2011
Never the same,
Two Stones,
From the Great River.
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - Jack - 11th October 2011
Right on Gnomey
Anyone who thinks archaeology isn't a science doesn't understand what science is.
Romano British - Is there really such a thing? - RedEarth - 11th October 2011
Jack Wrote:Right on Gnomey
Anyone who thinks archaeology isn't a science doesn't understand what science is.
I think they're a bit of a typo in that one; surely you meant to leave the 'n't' off the end of 'is'!
If archaeoloogy is a science then we can all get used to being laughed at by proper scientists!