Some interesting thoughts about archaeology
Chuck
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORWARDED FROM: Ellenbaum, Charles O.
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:41:08 -0600
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Archaeology List <[log in to unmask]>
From: "John W. Hoopes" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Dept. of Anthropology, University of Kansas
Subject:      Re: arch curriculum
To: Multiple recipients of list ARCH-L <[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, William Doleman UNM-OCA wrote:
 
> Well, as my geomorph prof said:
>        "Geologists suffer from physics envy."
>
> My immediate thought was:
>        "Archeologists suffer from geology envy."
>
> Could be "science envy" for that matter.  ;)
 
Well, archaeologists are a pretty mixed bunch.  Having taught the
graduate seminar in archaeological statistics here at KU a few times, I
can say that the majority of students I've encountered with an interest
in archaeology are NOT quantitatively inclined.  However, I have also
known many archaeologists who were crackerjack mathematicians and good
scientists to boot.
 
I do think that there are many archaeologists who long for the clean
proofs
and models that are produced by the natural sciences.  Unfortunately,
human
culture and society have proven to be notoriously resistant to the
formulation
of even the most general laws and principles.  I think there's a lot to
envy.  Especially with regard to a basic foundation of solid paradigms,
proven facts, and reliable methodologies.  Fundamental concepts such as
"mass" or "velocity" are much cleaner than any comparable notions used
in
archaeological models.  And, unlike biologists, we can't even agree upon
a paradigm such as Darwinian evolution to explain cultural phenomena.
There
have been various attempts, like David Clarke's "Analytical
Archaeology",
to help archaeology become a science in its own right, but it's clear
from
the postprocessual front that the very notion that archaeology can ever
be
scientific is problematic.
 
Do historians envy scientists?  I doubt it.
 
                                                        John Hoopes