12th October 2011, 01:47 PM
RedEarth Wrote:Moreno, from the other thread: "Archaeology uses scientific methods, but by no means in it's own right would I consider it a science. The problem for me lays in reconstructing a testable hypothesis. As we all know, how do you recreate an excavation where it can independently be verified by our colleagues?"
This is absolutely why archaeology is not a science, obviously it uses scientific techniques and even a scientific method of observation in certain circumstances but to suggest that all archaeology is a science is ridiculous, especially if you are not then going to back up your statement - Jack is hopefully a better scientist than he is a philosopher!
Grin. I am......or I think I am...........}
I'm a rubbish philosopher, never had any training in it, never read any books on philosophy don't know nowt about any of those named thinkers people love to quote.
But then again.............science is just a branch of philosophy.............from natural philosophy I understand. Its a way of thinking, a way of using structured thinking and backing arguments/theories with evidence.
When 'archaeologists' go beyond the evidence, they invariably fall foul of such 'wrong-thinking' later.
I know such story-telling is in vogue in archaeology at the moment. But those 'theories' created in such a manner that haven't been discredited yet will soon fall under the weight of evidence.
In my (humble) opinion there is never a need to go beyond the evidence to sex-up archaeology. The evidence often speaks for itself, and the answers are often lurking in the detail and cross-comparisons either at a regional, national or international level...or.....the gods of archaeology forbid......cross-comparisons with other 'fields of science.'
One amazing example I have come across recently is lipid analysis on early prehistoric pottery. I remember before the use of this technique there was a lot of talk of the secondary products revolution in the neolithic or summit along those lines. And a lot of talk about people using or not using cows milk. Also lots of theorising on the ritual significance etc...etc... and such story-telling.
Then comes along lipid analysis and bang......early prehistoric pottery had dairy products in it.
Next will come a combination of multiple determination radiocarbon dating (with statistics) on a range of sherds with lipid and other organic residue analysis.
Followed by evidence of when, where and in what those ritual-obsessed :face-stir: neolithic (or if you prefer - early 4th millennium to late 3rd millennium peoples) were using different animal products.
But I'm sure the ritual-obsessed archaeologists will continue to make up their stories of the 'meaning' of it all or how the experience of receiving the lab reports made them 'feel'.
RedEarth Wrote:If all archaeology is a science then explain to me the science of trying to match up a field boundary shown on a tithe map to a feature in the ground, or thow interpretating earthworks or aerial photos fits, for a couple of examples. If your view of archaeology is narrow enough to just consider the 'scientific' process of digging then you need to get out more (or perhaps stay in more?)
Thats easy. Both rely on such wild ideas as mathematics, and the systematic and random errors that are an inherent part of each method of recording, be it the photographing, the surveying, the map-making or the 'interpretation of the earthworks. The real science is in assessing the errors from each technique and how they have affected each set of results and to come up with a 'line of best fit' with its own statement of errors.
But let me explain where I'm coming from.........I once studied theoretical physics and electronics engineering to degree level. You should see how much of both are unrepeatable or unmeasurable or heavily theorized (made up).
Good archaeology is as good as any science. Even the standard format of site reports mirrors your basic lab report. When you look at archaeology in these terms.....
A site report becomes a lab report.
A critique or synthesis paper comparing the site results with other sites/evidence becomes a paper detailing a repeat of the experiment in the original lab report and a critique
A broader synthesis becomes a more detailed assessment of several sets of lab results
A program of (for example) radiocarbon dating or lipid analysis etc becomes a test of a theory
etc etc.
To me its a viable parallel.