On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, John Hooker wrote:
> 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.
But again, this is part of the scientific method. Not only critiquing the
findings of other researchers, but also their methods.
While I agree that we can not reduce all sampling errors, I also think
that we should try for something that is more than an art. I will not try
to argue that what some archaeologists do is more art than science, but I
think we can be scientific in our approach. There are some sampling errors
that I don't think we can ever get rid of, but continually improving
methods/techniques will gradually reduce some of the errors.
Jeff Baker
> 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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|