What is the point of Archaeology

[BAJR]

Recently saw this and thought you would love it. Thoughts?

It is a well reasoned argument... but is it valid?

http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-...ience.html

This essay is a critical evaluation of archaeology as a science. In what sense is archaeology a science? How does it compare with the other families of sciences? Is it an empirical science or does it belong to the hermeneutic disciplines? I look at archaeology as it is practiced, with special attention to methodology, interpretation of the archaeological record and the role of historical texts. Also discussed is its relationship with other hermeneutic disciplines (especially textual studies) and how this impacts on the archaeological endeavor. The eventual aim is to establish the limits of the archaeological reach.

[John Wells]

As a non-archaeologist who has held chartered status within different scientific disciplines, it is the definition of what archaeology is that is the problem for me. Science is a bunch of disciplines as is archaeology. So archaeology for me is not a science but simply a collective which includes scientific disciplines and methods. To include archaeology within the generality of science does not do it justice. It is much more than that. Or am I just a simple soul!?

[kevin wooldridge]

I think there is a contradiction in the critique. If as the writer says archaeology cannot be considered a science as the historical record is incomplete and can never fully be known, surely the same could apply to any number of 'pure' sciences. Biology, geology, botanics etc etc. As it is I agree I think with John's general analysis - to my mind archaeology is an unbounded discipline that uses techniques from 'sciences' as tools towards specific ends. Archaeological scientists are in general nerds, the same as most other scientists, but who just happen to have a lot more fun!!

PS There is an ongoing debate in GIS along much the same lines as to whether the 'S' should stand for 'systems' or 'science'.....Does it matter much at the end of the day? Not really but I guess in some peoples minds one is administered by technicians, the other by scientists. However observed by other scientists (or technicians!!), the two species are hard, if not near impossible, to tell apart

[RedEarth]

It's not a science, it's not a science, it's not a science...

[RedEarth]

As a non-archaeologist who has held chartered status within different scientific disciplines, it is the definition of what archaeology is that is the problem for me. Science is a bunch of disciplines as is archaeology. So archaeology for me is not a science but simply a collective which includes scientific disciplines and methods. To include archaeology within the generality of science does not do it justice. It is much more than that. Or am I just a simple soul!?

Exactly, archaeology is far more complicated than science!

[P Prentice]

It is a well reasoned argument... but is it valid?

it is a well reasoned argument but what is it for? it looks like a basis for rejecting the scientific rejection of christian dogma. you can bet that the creationists will lap it up - still a good argument though.
@ john wells - so is yours

[Jack]

Exactly, archaeology is far more complicated than science!

Nah, neither are as complicated as people want to make out.

Basic principles are the same.

I find that archaeology is like a battelground between 'science-lovers' and 'science-haters', almost as vicious as the creationists and scientists. I think this is due to the way in which subjects are taught at schools, collages and universities.
Some end up in archaeology through science, others don't.

Often the science backgrounders are wary (or even hostile) towards non-science-based theories and vice versa. The irony is both sides use the scientific method to argue it out.

Many arguments I have come across are still embedded in the disagreements between processual and post-processual archaeology, though these days the environmental-determinists have surfaced.

The odd thing is that these factions are often so embroiled in their private arguments (struggles) that they don't see that they are mirroring the wider world of the so-called hard sciences......

With the 'string theorists' now emergent after 60 (or so) years of exile......though now, the advocates of loop quantum gravity are fighting back...the two theories are locked in a head to head battle to the death with paper countering paper, theory attacking theory.

[BAJR]

processual archaeology all the way... :face-approve: then theory away to your hearts content.

For me, it is all in the primary record. Without this, then all the rest is pointless.

I want to be a member of the loop quantum gravity gang

[Jack]

Nah, loop quantum gravity theorists are clinging to Einstein's way of thinking like a drowning person grabbing two different pieces of a sinking ship as they drift apart

Einstien was wrong on this, the universe (god) does play dice.

Strings, shaped by folded dimensions are the answer.

[BAJR]

that convinced me... :p

I liked that the end of the essay at least said archaeology was fun :face-approve: