6th May 2010, 12:57 AM
Not just 'interpretations', meanings or imaginings, but also eminently Practical and Technical issues...e.g. Dinosaurs post that I referred to (lots of other examples in archives of this forum)..
Evidence is good, but Science not so Simples...(eg Richard Holmes, 2009, "Age of Wonder")
If it (Archaeology) is "the remains of past activity" (post holes ect) it can not simultaenously by created by those same people - it must be percieved at some distance to qualify as being in the past...
Perhaps the Remains-in-themselves do not qualify as Archaeology per se? - they become such when perceived another person (sometime in the future)...generations walk past ancient monuments without perceiving them as Archaeology - at least not in the sense that we now regard the discipline...(and yet the Remains remain...)
empty green fields are filled with unexpected discoveries through the activities of archaeologists now - can those remains be said to be Archaeology independent of the actions/thoughts/perceptions of Archaeologists?
When the field is dug up there is no formal scientific Evidence until the archaeologist has created it - there is little or no Material, until the archaeological digger decides where to start digging and how best to investigate the Remains . Perceptions and paradigms are clearly in dialouge with data, in both directions...
Dictionary definitions of 'archaeology' all indicate that it is the study of various remains of the past. ...(well human/cultural related remains anyway - this is less problematic in palaeontology, as clearly it is not useful, or practical, to consider that fossils are made by dinosaurs...)
How are antiques or ritual objects different to archaeology objects?
Is this a just a nice little trinket I found in the plough-soil, to do with as I please, or is it an archaeological object?
Evidence is good, but Science not so Simples...(eg Richard Holmes, 2009, "Age of Wonder")
If it (Archaeology) is "the remains of past activity" (post holes ect) it can not simultaenously by created by those same people - it must be percieved at some distance to qualify as being in the past...
Perhaps the Remains-in-themselves do not qualify as Archaeology per se? - they become such when perceived another person (sometime in the future)...generations walk past ancient monuments without perceiving them as Archaeology - at least not in the sense that we now regard the discipline...(and yet the Remains remain...)
empty green fields are filled with unexpected discoveries through the activities of archaeologists now - can those remains be said to be Archaeology independent of the actions/thoughts/perceptions of Archaeologists?
When the field is dug up there is no formal scientific Evidence until the archaeologist has created it - there is little or no Material, until the archaeological digger decides where to start digging and how best to investigate the Remains . Perceptions and paradigms are clearly in dialouge with data, in both directions...
Dictionary definitions of 'archaeology' all indicate that it is the study of various remains of the past. ...(well human/cultural related remains anyway - this is less problematic in palaeontology, as clearly it is not useful, or practical, to consider that fossils are made by dinosaurs...)
How are antiques or ritual objects different to archaeology objects?
Is this a just a nice little trinket I found in the plough-soil, to do with as I please, or is it an archaeological object?