Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:34 +0200 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
There are very real historical reasons for that
Back between 1800-1850 or so, antiquaries were fighting public opinion; seen
as ridiculous dilettantes, they tried to get away from the excesses of bad
philology, folklore studies, etc., and try to reform as a "science" based on
"facts", eventually hitching a ride on "uniformitarianism" & evolution & the
3-age system (derived from art history)
So we still tend to say excavation is somehow better (more macho?) than
theory, or reanalysis of materials held in archives/museums, or
non-destructive survey methods, ethnoarchaeology, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron May
Sent: March 27, 2007 23:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Oak Island
A funny thing about archaeologists is their swift willingness to dismiss
folklore as fantasy.
|
|
|