I'll never understand this self-indulgent guilt over who knows the past
and who
controls the past. We *do* have a special and better understanding of
the past
than those who are not schooled in archaeology--just like a trained
forester
has a better understanding of forests, or a trained musician has a
better
understanding of music. It may not give us ownership, or absolute
knowledge,
but I suggest that it *does* give us a priveleged position when it
comes to
knowing the past.
The practical question is: Why should society support us at such a cost
if at
the end of the day, all we can say is "My opinion about the past is no
better
than anyone else's?"
Gerry here: You mention *we*. Which we are you speaking about. I also
am an archaeologist who believes archaeologists sit in a pretty super
position in being able to interpret the past. After all, it's their
job. I would rather have an archaeologist relate my history to me
rather than a myopic mathematician!
And if you're an archaeologist, then you should know that one learned
opinion most likely differs from another learned opinion. And both
differ from an unlearned opinion. How can anyone argue that an
unlearned opinion is as substantial as a learned opinion? Perhaps you
need to figure out who has the learning and who doesn't before you try
to figure out an answer to your question
Gerry
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|