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