Jeff,
The problem that I have with archaeology being viewed as a science is
that the remaining evidence will always be less than what was
originally there. My favorite example is the Coriosolite coin hoard
from Trebry. Katherine Gruel, using neutron activation analysis
demonstrated that most of the classes of this coinage were being
reduced in silver content by about 2% from the previous class. There
was nothing wrong with the equipment, and the method of taking the
average of a number of specimens was an accepted procedure. Indeed,
Coriosolite coins from all hoards will show this same result.
There is only one slight problem, it is wrong. What actually occurred
was that the moneyers were becoming increasingly careless as they went
about their task. They produced an ever widening range of alloys. When
coins were noticeably too rich in the silver content they were culled
from circulation and melted to profit on the metal. The 2% thus
measured the progress of the disintegration of the process, not the
original action. I revealed this by an examination of the metal
contents plotted against the chronology.
In a nutshell, there will always be some sampling errors, and
sometimes these can be dramatic. While science can limit variabilities
by making experimental situations as close to ideal as is possible,
archaeology tries to assign cause based on limited evidence, and from
a viewpoint remote in time from the original circumstances. Scientific
methods can be used, but archaeology is more of an art than a science.
Archaeology is at its most unscientific when it uses lack of evidence
to support any hypothesis.
Regards,
John Hooker
Jeffrey L Baker wrote:
>
> In archaeology, our replicability is based upon repeated observations of
> similar phenomenon. We use multiple transects in doing settlement studies.
> Each excavated unit can be considered an observation. Finding certain
> findings in a single test unit at site B may lead a researcher to posit
> the implications of those findings. Repeated excavations at site B (or
> other sites in the region) that come up with similar findings reinforce
> the initial hypothesis. If no other excavations produce similar findings,
> then an alternative explanation must be found. (In saying this, the units
> must be into similar surface features, an excavation into a hearth will be
> expected to produce difference results versus an experiment into a
> midden).
>
> Admittedly, in archaeology, the number of variables that we cannot control
> are much greater than they are in chemistry, but there has been some
> attempt to standardize excavation strategies over the years.
--
Visit our Website at http://www.writer2001.com
Coriosolite Expert System...Animation...Poetry...Books
Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
Technical Writing...Graphics...Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|