12th October 2011, 02:14 PM
In my opinion Archaeology is a science in so far as it is based on evidence and the data gathered informs hypotheses. That data can and should be of a standard to be re-assessed as complementary scientific methodologies are developed. That leads me to a question - if archaeology is a science and excavation is pure data capture do research frameworks and the interpretive nature of recording (I rarely see a properly stripy section like I'd draw) skew the possible results and conclusions? Or did I just dissappear up my a**?
I guess I see archaeology as a proto-science. Like in the Enlightenment there were alchemists and chemists... only essential difference was outlook.
Really interesting debate :face-approve:
I guess I see archaeology as a proto-science. Like in the Enlightenment there were alchemists and chemists... only essential difference was outlook.
Really interesting debate :face-approve: