17th October 2011, 07:26 PM
There is an inherent ambiguity in archaeology: our interpretations and theoretical formulation for understanding the past. The empiricism we utilise in our discipline lays in the use and construction of scientific methodology through pedegogic ideals. What complicates our "science" is the "ethnic" or for others "cultural" understanding and relationship of artefacts to said ethnicities or cultures, the aim of my interest in anthropological archaeology. What difference does it make whether we are a science or use scientific methods to broaden our understanding of the past? Why be so concerned with such a parcimonious definition?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.