a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Excellent post and response.
I have to give you a star for that, I am aware of my terrible gramma and you are far from the first to point that out so no offence taken and also
true about some physicists and cross discipline professors I have met but they tend more to frown down on business studies than archeaology, I
actually do like the subject but some time's they do get it wrong though I more often admittedly get it wrong,.
Archeaology is not quite as bad as I came accross as painting it but anything that over say ten thousand years and the evidence is naturally more
scant so it is more therefore built upon interpretation and sometimes the archeaologists own bias is then framed as set fact upon which further
assumptions are sometime's made.
In general scientists of all disciplines have the same pride and ego problems, especially when they have cherished a theory and have built a house of
well balanced card's on top only to have some rogue data or alternative theory blow them out of the water, which can I am sure be life shattering in
So it is not isolated to archeaologists and indeed some are what I would regard as proper scientists in there own right, especially those multi
disciplined practitioners of the discipline such as engineers whom have identified and caused reclassification of object's and mathematician's whom
are intrigued by the mesopotamian use of the zero, decimal point and base twelve mathematics when any strucural engineer would explain that fractions
are a better method of working out engineering principles (and more accurate for there purposes) as they like to work with whole numbers and not
infinitely recurring or rounded numbers which can introduce problem's for them.
I do not distrust them in general and the like's of the Time team a great british TV series with some real down to earth archaeological scholars was
one of my favourite tea time show's when it is on, sadly they have lost a few of there members recently, they however do not perform or interpret such
long term archeaology and for them it is more recent archeaological subject's and local history such as roman villa's in there dig's (though they
perform far faster than there archeaological staff would like as it is a TV show so a bulldozer starts it off rather than a trowl and brush).
As you also mention among the multi discipline members Forensic archeaologists, these are most definitely genuine scientists as they have to apply
rigorous scientific method the same as pathologist's so I do agree but the key word is nebulous and that is the problem,.
The nice thing about archeaology is that it is open to everybody and as you call it more accurately it is a humanity and tangeble to most people but
the bad thing is quality control and the only real gripe I have with any of them is when they make a blanket statement that precludes possibilitys'
outside of there own interpretation or bias (yeah I too am biased so the pot calling the kettle black as the old saying goes).
Anthropology is actually more of an applied science (like engineering is) as it is more closely related to the medical professions (though it is far
from a medical profession as you know) and as for history a wise man once said the victor writes the history, sometimes archeaologists do throw a
spanner in the works though and I enjoy seeing it rattle the history scholars such as the discovery's concerning the surprisingly cultured and
advanced galls of france whom the Romans always painted as savage barbarians when in fact they were more tollerant and had more respect for woman than
the romans themselves did,
(though as for the celtic culture in general as you know they were spread from anatolia to ireland but are thought to have originated in what is today
southern germany south of the rhein and they had a few shared belief system but there culture varied from tribe to tribe and place to place as indeed
did there ethnicity as the celts were a warrior elite not a race and conquered to rule in many cases, they also allowed members of there conquered
tribes to prove themselves worthy and join that elite though of course they also had darker sides and slavery, human sacrifice were not foreign to
But it works and that is all I can say though the further back in time the less accurate they get, that processural archeology page is good
The other thing worth mentioning is the higher the profile the archeaologist the greater his ego and bias, this also interprets to how they percieve
Most of them though are the same as yourself or myself and they would love to stumble on some great evidence of this I have no doubt but I stand by
my argument, historians also when they have a good set of record's can work in conjunction with archeaologists but when there bread crumb's fail they
too sometimes resort to speculative history as we all do in the face of mystery, we try to find familiar ground or make leaps of faith in our own
judgement and this is a decidedly human trait which probably stems from our cave painting ancestors whom showed abstract thought at a high level
(Though they may have had some herbel help on occasion).
edit on 25-6-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)