-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Arch-theory list is for international discussions, reviews, and exchanges o [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Im Auftrag von Robert Jeske
Gesendet am: Dienstag, 12. März 2002 17:57
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: An anecdote
This is not meant as criticism, but I think sometimes we worry too much about labels, and not enough about doing what we do....No one ripped me up (unless I missed the post) about my assertion that our statements about the past must be conditioned by a correspondence to the empirical record (recognizing that theory plays a large part in how we encounter that empirical record), so I'll assume that most of us agree with that. That, in essence, is science. We make up a theory to explain phenomena, then test our theory by exploring its implications for how the archaeological record is structured. The more different things we can make hypotheses about that turn out to be supported by the empirical record, the happier we are with our theory. When our expectations (i.e., hypotheses) aren't supported, we start to think about new theories. But it's all about satisfying ourselves that our statements make sense by going from theory to data, back to theory, back to data, and so on. You can call it contextual, you can call it hermeneutics, you can call it tacking, you can call it science. Any way you look at it, it's archaeology.
If anyone has a radically different view of what we do when we do archaeology, I'd be happy to hear what it is.
Bobgeoff carver wrote:
And as for being "scientific": is there a general concensus that that is
what archaeologists want to be? I keep running up against opposition to
the very idea...
--
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does." -- Christopher MorleyRobert J. Jeske, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology
Sabin Hall 275B
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201
414-229-2424
414-229-5848 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/ArchLab/Any opinions expressed here, reasonable or otherwise, are mine. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.