Most academic disciplines, even ancient history, tend to mirror current
theoretical trends. And most academic disciplines slowly undergo a
theoretical change. In archaeology, a material culture must be
carefully, objectively, and thoroughly recorded utilizing a particular
"scientific" vehicle (satellite imagery for example). These
observations must be as accurate as possible and painstakingly
recorded. The "fun" part comes in the personal interpretation of the
material culture. Usually this interpretation is based on a current
ideology (Marxism, for example) or possibly on a past ideology (Hegelian
thought) and it's the task of the good archaeologist to shuffle between
the two parameters. And as you so cogently put it:
<All we can do is find an answer that satisfies us and if any aspect of
the answer
<fails to satisfy - then we look again.
Thus, in archaeology anyway, the material culture that sits in the many
boxes in archaeology departments throughout the world need examination,
reexamination, reexamination etc. and each evaluation will be as unique
as a particular archaeologist.
Gerry Reinhart-Waller
Independent Scholar
Steve Dobson wrote:
> When addressing questions like this I think it is useful to think of
> whether we seek truth and if so whether we can achieve it for modern
> society looking at current material culture. I would argue that if it
> is
> not really possible to completely understand any defining truth in
> modern
> society we haven't got much chance in finding truth in the past. All
> we
> can do is find an answer that satisfies us and if any aspect of the
> answer
> fails to satisfy - then we look again.
>
> Steve
>
> -----
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Dobson Tel: +44 01904
> 433953
> Experimental Officer Fax: +44 01904
> 433902
> Department of Archaeology Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> The King's Manor
> University of York
> York, YO1 7EP, UK
> -----------------
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Ken Jacobs wrote:
>
> > Given your belief that "truth lies in the fusion between both art
> and
> > science" I would be very intrigued to know what features define for
> you "science."
> >
> > -Ken Jacobs UdeMontreal
> >
> > Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Jani,
> > > Your question is most interesting since it's the same question I
> asked
> > > my mentor many years ago. His answer was that truth in
> archaeology is
> > > like truth in every discipline -- biology, history, anthropology
> etc.
> > > He later wrote about truth being in the eye of the beholder --
> which I'm
> > > convinced that it is. But now that our world has been compressed
> under
> > > the influence of the internet, I think that one needs to embrace
> > > "science" as a ground mark, and then proceed carefully from
> there. I
> > > also think that truth lies in the fusion between both art and
> science.
> > > Regards,
> > > Ger
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|