 |
 |
Dear Jeffrey and John, What both of you are expressing is most interesting. But I have one question for you: which of the college disciplines offered today most resembles "science" and why? Is it physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc? Gerry Jeffrey L Baker wrote: > 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. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%