Archaeology proves nothing

[BAJR]

Following on from the end of the discussion on the BNP's use of archaeology as proof of their .. ahem... 'flawed principals' I was pondering this question... as many political parties and religious groups and even whole countries, try to prove a specific point (which usually goes along the lines of we are ancient, we are the real masters of this area/region/planet) and I wonder whether they are missing the point of archaeology... as archaeology can only deal in absolutes...

ie this is a ceramic... this is stone..... this person was born here... this person died...

the rest is best guess based on the available (and I stress the word available) evidence.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. So this leaves us open to any crackpottery ideas.. ie. just because we have now found the Aryan stronghold of guff the destroyer does not mean that its was not there... ergo cogito bllks.

Here is the question.... Can archaeology prove anything? :face-huh:

[Geli]

For me archaeology has always been about exploring what it is to be human (both on a personal and broader level). Part of the great philosophical musing of what we are, where we've been and possibly where we are going (In my case to sign on lol).

Whether archaeology can prove anything is a mute point, because the answer would depend on what you are trying to prove!? On one level we can prove what resources people in the past had and on the basis of this perhaps glean something as to what it was like to live in different times (and spaces), but beyond this we can say very little with certainty.

I think this has the potential to be a very interesting thread, because I'm sure many people involved have never addressed this question. So given the premiss that archaeology in the final analysis can prove nothing why do we pursue the activity? I'm sure we'll get some choice reasoning from some of BAJR's more notable characters (you know who you are lol)

[troll]

Cool thread!

Without diving into the philosophy involved, here`s a couple of thoughts....

1. Cretins will use anything thay believe will further their political/emotional needs- the old "we were here first" testicles is but one weapon in a muppets reasoning toolkit (the word "tool" used here deliberately)

2. The processes of archaeology infused with the sciences is perfectly acceptable as proof enough to convict in a court of law. War crimes, crimes against humanity and simple crimes of interpersonal violence have been and continue to be "proven" in national and international courts of law so....yes-archaeology can prove quite a bit.

3. Sadly, with the runaway(and deliberately un-policed) decline in professional standards seen in "professional" archaeology and the almost total lack of competence in "academic" archaeology, I would predict that any judge and jury worth the title would throw out any evidence brought to court by representatives of the two species....in this scenario...no-archaeology couldn`t prove that night follows day.

4. This post is meant to be deliberately provocative and does not necessarily represent the views of the author. Prove it! :face-stir:

[Odinn]

no-archaeology couldn`t prove that night follows day.

You calling us all post-processualists? That's fighting talk where I come from. More seriously, given your point 2, you are contradicting yourself immediately in point 3. You need to decide which argument you wish to stand behind. C+ Could do better. :face-stir:

For the main question, it all depends what you mean by 'prove'. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Absolute proof? Archaeology can prove some things but others are a matter of interpretation. I think we can achieve reasonable consensus on certain aspects of the past based on the currently available evidence. If those consensuses stand the test of time then I suspect we have proven them to a certain extent.

[troll]

Greetings Odinn...... ironically then, only time itself will tell if we have proved anything at all! Our judges are in the distant future! :face-approve:

[Odinn]

Greetings Odinn...... ironically then, only time itself will tell if we have proved anything at all! Our judges are in the distant future! :face-approve:

Future history will be our judge! Well, it's an idea. I don't honestly know if it is right but it seems worth looking into to me. Now, where did I put the rejuvenation pills? I want to know how things will turn out.

Does it really matter if we do not prove anything? Will anyone other than archaeologists care? Will it really affect the future if we do not prove anything? People will still construct (probably largely inaccurate) stories around what we produce and future history will feed off those, creating the myths that sustain society and create our national sense(s) of identity. The world will keep turning (unless we blow it to tiny little pieces). So, does proof matter and is it likely to affect anything at all? One aspect of my own work has highlighted for me that public knowledge lags at least 150 years behind current academic thinking in some areas, and that there is a significant wilful ignorance on the part of the public, because they find the 19th-century ideas more 'glamorous' and appealing. Are we really going to change that just because we 'prove' something?

Right, I think there is still some wine in the bottle. Time to finish it.

[Wax]

Can any one prove to me that I am not the figment of some one else’s imagination or perhaps a random glitch in the space time continuum?}

On a more serious point:

Archaeology is about evidence and evidence always requires interpretation.

And I believe that physicists full accept that the act of observing changes the thing being observed

So perhaps in a very really sense archaeology cannot actually prove anything as everything is subject to the filters of the human mind. Which is a bag of water with a few added chemicals:face-stir:

[Steven]

3. Sadly, with the runaway(and deliberately un-policed) decline in professional standards seen in "professional" archaeology and the almost total lack of competence in "academic" archaeology,

Yes, when I think back to all the really important sites that we dug in the 70s and 80s using the amazingly high standards prevalent in archaeology then. You know, utilising the specialist skills of unpaid, unqualified, inexperienced students who camped throughout the excavation "season". If only the professionalism exhibited by us writing notes in notebooks as records and then storing them in garages/attics where still with us today. It was fantastic that only the "Director" filled out records because (let's face it) there's no way "diggers" can grasp the complexities of how to describe a mosaic. I mean its hard to imagine now that these outstanding standards were applied throughout many years of an excavation and that the professionalism and dedication continued through the post-ex project. The use of vets as bone specialists and storage of pottery in buckets! Inspired! The way that funds for excavations were provided by the DoE to unregulated, unmonitored organisations meant that they were fully appropriately accountable to themselves, not like all this stupid polluter pays, required by law, curatorial monitoring, bureaucratic rubbish now! The fantastic way that archaeologists could write a Shire book on their excavation/site and then prove their exceptional standards by musing on their excavation for years until finally losing the records down the back of the sofa and making sure that a report existed for prosperity by being far to busy to write it.
Oh how I miss those halcyon days of casual sexism, no employment rights and no health and safety, As a Director I could do anything I liked without some pencil pusher from county hall telling me that it was "illegal". I mean what do those council whallas know? They don't know one side of a pit dwelling from a Piltdown skull. Anyway got to go, busy this afternoon "interviewing" a lovely young filly for a job in finds (can't have here getting muddy can we!) so must a have a quick tipple and my afternoon nap. "You lot .... just keep digging and make sure you clean up your loose before Tea"
toodle pip!

[BAJR]

Ah indeed... this is the very conundrum that besets us...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]583[/ATTACH]Yesterday evening I went for a walk in the lammermuirs.. and visited this Lilliputian stone circle..
Yadlee (NGR NT 6540 6732)
http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/574...ls/yadlee/

The original report from 1913 is this

A small stone circle 27ft in diameter and comprising seven small stones, all but one still earthfast.....and numerous stones are met with on probing. It has not been excavated.

by 1966 me get this

A small stone circle, as described above, located at NT 6540 6732. Purpose uncertain.

well at least they are bold enough to say... purpose uncertain...

in 1979 the OS visit... and rock the world with this new evidence..

Its condition is unchanged.
On plan, the stones describe an oval measuring overall 9.0m E-W by 8.0m N-S. The significance of four earthfast stones outside the northern arc and a random group of five others about 10.0m west of the circle is uncertain, but they do not appear to have formed part of a larger or more complex monument.

How exactly do they know that it is not part of a larger complex... surely this is interpretation without supporting evidence... otherwise known as saying the first thing that comes into your mind.

However... when the Windfarm is proposed ... this evidence is used... and indeed enhanced slightly (what evidence I cry)

but they do not appear to have formed part of a larger or more extensive monument

and when it comes to visual impact... it is indirect.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]584[/ATTACH]

Now I don't point at anyone in particular... but this accumulation of non evidence becomes stronger through time.

All we actually know is that stones are there... and they are 'possibly' placed there in possibly a structured way (though there is of course no evidence to confirm this... this is assumption)

Fact... stones.
The rest.... is made up!

Gawd love us... perhaps the world needs us for the stories we tell.

Archaeology is about evidence and evidence always requires interpretation.... it is how that interpretation is presents... as fact? or as interpretation.

[Wax]

Indeed archaeology is about evidence so as archaeologists our duty is to record that evidence to the best our abilities.

I don’t imagine the early archaeological pioneers dreamt of DNA analysis or C14 and there may be technologies in the future beyond our ability to imagine.

Ways of modelling the interpretation of the evidence also change as society changes. The past is not fixed it has gone and can only be accessed through the mirror of the present.

Until the invention of the time machine we cannot say that any interpretation is final and even then (unless the time machine enables you to experience the world view of the person who created the evidence) whole sections of the why and wherefore of the past are forever beyond our grasp.

This is what I like about archaeology I know I may never be able to understand the past but I can touch it and it touches me. Over thousands of years there is still a direct relationship between me and those long dead generations behind me.

I am aware for some societies the past is not dead but a living part of their daily existence and for them archaeology may be totally irrelevant or even a blasphemy. Sometimes I envy them.}

Terry Prachett has it right, Man is the Story Telling Ape and those stories have their own driving force. (never let the facts get in the way of a good story:face-stir