Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
11th October 2011, 12:43 PM
RedEarth Wrote:I think they're a bit of a typo in that one; surely you meant to leave the 'n't' off the end of 'is'!
If archaeoloogy is a science then we can all get used to being laughed at by proper scientists!
You possibly don't understand what science is then?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
11th October 2011, 03:19 PM
Jack Wrote:You possibly don't understand what science is then?
Would you care to tell the class? You seem to be very certain in your own understanding.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
11th October 2011, 05:58 PM
Red : i AM a scientist - i DO laugh at myself.
alternate hypothesis: show me a 'Real' Scientist.....
or {science = knowledge)
or [scientific method is a tool, not a definition]
or....
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
11th October 2011, 06:58 PM
Jack Wrote:Right on Gnomey
Anyone who thinks archaeology isn't a science doesn't understand what science is.
An observation by a single person is merely a personal opinion, not science - pretty much all archaeological recording comes under that heading, where to draw that boundary between layers on a section drawing, where to measure the width of the pit...as Jack well knows I've long since leart to go back to the drawings for dimensions, it's scary how often and how much those written on the context sheets differ....almost all archaeology is subjective rather than objective, would be nice if it was the other way around, then we might just get taken more seriously by other 'scientists'? And people on TV really don't help....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
11th October 2011, 11:30 PM
Probably best posted to "Is archaeology a science" thread, but since we're considering the usage of subjective terms like "Romano-British" and archaeology, as pointed out, archaeology is subjective. 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?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
12th October 2011, 08:19 AM
To keep this thread on topic, and because this is an exciting enough topic itself, I have started a new thread.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
12th October 2011, 01:18 PM
Ok, to get things back on :face-topic:, are there any aspects of 'Roman' civilisation that don't seem to have made it to Brittannia as a whole (or at least aren't yet visible in the archaeological record)?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
12th October 2011, 01:22 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:Ok, to get things back on :face-topic:, are there any aspects of 'Roman' civilisation that don't seem to have made it to Brittannia as a whole (or at least aren't yet visible in the archaeological record)?
whats that got to do with anything?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
12th October 2011, 08:26 PM
If we've got the full cultural package from central Italy, bread and Circuses (ok, ?Circus), wine, minging fish sauce, straight roads, decent crockery, aquaducts, troops in skirts, even elephants, how then can Britain 43-410AD be distinguished from Rome 43-410AD?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
12th October 2011, 08:27 PM
oh, apart from the weather, although even that was supposed to have been warmer then :face-approve:
Romano British - Is there really such a thing?
