Is Archaeology a Science?

col_nicholson

I just thought I would ask, considering that archaeology is in the science section of boards.

So is archaeology a science?

Bog Butter

The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.

study of ancient cultures through remains: the scientific study of ancient cultures through the examination of their material remains such as buildings, graves, tools, and other artifacts usually dug up from the ground

Somebody who has no experience working in archaeology might not see it as a science. However public perception of archaeology is often coloured by films, books, websites which were not written by archaeologists.

Even within acedemic circles archaeological evidence is often distorted or twisted to suit a particular agenda.

E.g Celtic studies: Celtic literary scholars tend to assume that because a language, amongst other cultural changes, came to this country then their must have been an invasion of people to this island. They then use the archaeological record to support their argument. However there is in fact no archaeological evidence to say a mass group of people came here known as the Celts.

The quote below is from Pagan Celtic Ireland The Enigma of the Irish Iron Age by Barry Raftery

Archaeology presents us with a perplexing picture, one which is largely at variance with that presented by philology, early Irish history, folklore and tradition. It seems almost heretical to insist theat a Celtic invasion of Ireland never happened. ... Perhaps there was, indeed, a migration of 'Celts' to Ireland. The only problem is, archaeology cannot prove it.

"archaeology cannot prove it" This is a conclusion based on the scientific analysis of the evidence.

The only way of forming a true direct opinion on archaeology is by visiting a archaeological site or by reading literature (book, report etc.) written an archaeologist.

Bog Butter

http://www.m3motorway.ie

Have a look at the publications here.

col_nicholson

But is the excavation process itself not selective and exclusive, and the interpretation coming from the excavation entirely subjective and rooted in rationality far removed from past rationalities?

chrissor

I was told in a lecture last year that archaeology is technically not a science because the process of excavation on a site cannot be repeated just recorded. However, excavation is only a part of archaeology.

Bog Butter

Is it selective?

The vast majority of archaeological excavation in Ireland is development led. Take the construction of a road. There are a number of ways the archaeologists identify sites and they include field walking, geophysical surveys, aerial photography which may identify crop marks, Google earth. But the only way to be conclusive, that there is archaeology buried beneath the top soil, is to strip the top soil. On road projects there is a centre line trench dug by JCB with off shoot trenches each side staggered (herring bone effect). If a feature is identified a larger area is opened up.

Archaeologists do not dig on an ad-hoc basic. It is systematic. They dig in the knowledge that they are digging through an archaeological feature, which is identified following the stripping of the top-soil. The outline of the feature is visible and the soil (top fill) within it is visible in comparison with the surrounding undisturbed sub-soil.

After the stripping of the top-soil all features present will be visible. Features may include a post-hole, a pit, a ditch, a grave, a souterrain etc. When a site is opened for excavation, which includes the issuing of a state issued licence (issued in the knowledge of archaeological features present) all features are excavated. The surface expression of the features will determine how it is excavated.

There are many different ways to interpret archaeological evidence. Archaeologists use either relative (comparison with other features, artefacts of known date) or absolute dating (dendrochronology, Carbon 14 etc.)

The excavation of features takes the form of sections (half sections, quarter section etc.) It will depend on the surface expression. With a half section half of the feature is excavated and the other half is left in. The material taken out will be stratified layers of soil which are visible in the section. The stratified layers are termed as fills and they will reflect how the feature was filled in i.e. a chronological record. The fills (including any finds within them) will be analysed. Charcoal, seeds, artefacts, the soil itself and even stones are analysed. An absolute date may be gained from the charcoal or seeds. The presence of seeds on its own may indicate to its use.

This analysis may tell you what type of feature it is and how it was used. A relative date will often be gained through the comparison of the overall plan of the feature with other features of known date.

It is not exclusive. In fact unlike history archaeology is indiscriminative. While history comes from written sources written by the elite archaeology represents all of society.

col_nicholson

I disagree. It is still exclusive because it is necessarily destructive and certain parts of a site are excavated over others, eliminating the possibility to do it another way. And still selective because regardless of what is excavated, it is interpreted through the eyes of the director, whoever that my be, and can never be an empirical process.

marco_polo

chrissor wrote: »

I was told in a lecture last year that archaeology is technically not a science because the process of excavation on a site cannot be repeated just recorded. However, excavation is only a part of archaeology.

By that criteria Paleaontology is not a science either.

col_nicholson wrote: »

I disagree. It is still exclusive because it is necessarily destructive and certain parts of a site are excavated over others, eliminating the possibility to do it another way. And still selective because regardless of what is excavated, it is interpreted through the eyes of the director, whoever that my be, and can never be an empirical process.

It is often overlooked that in many scientific branches observational techniques are just as valid a tool of the scientific method as experimental ones, and in many cases the only technique available.

col_nicholson

But it is not just observational techniques, its interpretation. Seeing it as science suggests that we can have a 'snapshot', or concrete image of the past when really we cannot, ever. Really what archaeology investigates is somewhere between the past and the present, a sort of non-existent past.

Saabdub

Some people have suggested that archaeological interpretation is about creating a past that is appropriate to the present. The works of Gustaf Kossinna, Professor of Archaeology at Berlin, are a case in point. He developed a number of seminal archaeological concepts such as the Culture Group, settlement archaeology, etc. However, his role in the development of the concept of the Aryan and his contributions to the development of German nationalism are an extreme example of the creation of an archaeological mythology that appeared to be based on science. His work was so politically important that the seventh edition of his book Die deutsche Vorgeschichte - eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaf had a foreword written by Adolf Hitler.