Certainly in the best of all possible worlds all of us should be objective , or
at least strive to be. Reality, however, is that many archaeologists have an
agendas/bias. With some of us our predilection(s) are obvious. Some of us will
even admit to a bias. With others the "bias" may be the result of our favorite
paradigm (marxism, post-processual, post-modern, ...) or where we attended
University.
I heard one well known archeologist state that the only proper function for
archeology was social engineering and that one should carefully structure ones
research so as not to get data that would harm disadvantaged groups. Said
individual even went so far as to say that information that would harm a
disadvantaged group should be ignored or suppressed, or even disposed of.
Unfortunately, there is some, pehaps even a lot of tainted work out there. Just
because it is written by someone with an advanced degree doesn't mean it is
correct or, unfortunately, even true.
It should also be kept in mind that archaeology, because it is a science, and
not a religion, is always striving to refine what we think we know and work
toward the trueth. But, as we are always developing new techniques and making
new discoveries, these often invalidate earlier theories. For instance, most of
what I was taught in University about human evolution has been proved
incorrect. The discovery of new hominid fossils has completely altered the
accepted human lineage.
Keep foremost in your mind the proverb "Believe nothing of what you hear and
only half of what you see". Probably one should believe 1/4 to 1/2 half of what
one reads, unless one knows the author. And remember the words of Firesign
Theatre "Everything you know is wrong".
JH Brothers IV
joy wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: B. Andersson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 14 April 1999 12:58
> Subject: Re: historians and historical archaeology
>
> bjorn wrote
> >
> >But could it be that our perception and understanding are narratives in the
> >first place? That the act of excavation itself is structured by a basic
> >narrative understanding? And as such, not more true, than our
> >interpretation of the excavated artefacts? Which gives the result that
> >there are no fundamental difference at all between excavation and
> >interpretation?
> >
> snip
>
> Hi bjorn
>
> please remember I am new to this and so i hope i am allowed to appear crass
> and/or naive.
>
> I havn't come across this view point yet, and so do not know if this is an
> issue or not BUT i have taken it for granted that as scientist we should be
> objective. Is this not then applicable in our field? I'm confused.
>
> Or do you mean that there is no "objectivity" that can be achieved because
> we are influenced by our past and present is that your "narrative".?
>
> probably none of these - bemused. joy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|