Projection
Peter Alaca
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the common mistakes of historical
investigation is an unjustified transference of
concepts inherent in the historian's mind into
the minds of the people of the epoch he studies.
The historian involuntarily attributes categories
implanted in his system of thinking by his own
culture, his way of articulating the world, to people
of a quite different culture.
All the terms used by historians, such as 'property',
'wealth', 'authority', 'state', 'religion', must be applied
with due consideration for the specific features of an
epoch, society or stage of social development.
This procedure is especially perilous, as it is
performed unconsciously and, therefore, cannot
be viewed critically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Gurevich (1992)
"Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages"
(quotes borrowed from Alan Macfarlane and Peter Pope)
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
How is this seen archaeologically?
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
Very good question, Eric!
Tedd recently talked about much-discussed issues in archaeology. One of
them was the emic-etic dichotomy. Peter's post is a good case in point.
In pre-historic and unrecorded historic archaeology, it is tempting to
use either current or known historic catagories when interpreting
artifacts, features and structures.
For instance, if one finds differential burial goods in graves of an
unknown culture, it is tempting to think that this means difference in
status or wealth. This makes perfect sense. Those with more and/or
higher-quality burial goods would seem to be somehow the 'better sort'
in the culture.
However, the higher quality and/or quantity of grave goods might have
been the culture's way of buying off the spirits to make sure a
particularly crappy person stayed dead, and out of the affairs of the
living. It could also have been a way of posthumously evening up the
score, with the poor or outcast in life getting the goodies after
death.
It's a cautionary tale. 'The past is a foriegn county; they do things
differently there.'
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Gawd - Peter answers for you and you answer for Peter.
I agree with the point made by that quotation and agree that, in spite
of its specific reference to historians, it applies to archaeological
interpretation as much as it does to psychological interpretations
etc.
In spite of it's general applicability, do you see it as an
appropriate topic for this news group? (I'm not objecting but I
wondered about your view of the matter).
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
What can I say? Have you ever seen us in the same place at the same
time? :-)
> I agree with the point made by that quotation and agree that, in spite
> of its specific reference to historians, it applies to archaeological
> interpretation as much as it does to psychological interpretations
> etc.
>
> In spite of it's general applicability, do you see it as an
> appropriate topic for this news group? (I'm not objecting but I
> wondered about your view of the matter).
Absolutely.
Of course, it would be preferable to tie the theoretical discussion
into a specific archaeological situation. However, archaeological
theory in general is clearly on-topic in an archaeological ng. I'd like
to see much more of that, and much less of the interminable documentary
threads.
Does that seem reasonable?
Uwe Müller
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bqd772tj53bsv9nid...@4ax.com...
We've had the topic recently in the thread about war in prehistory. We've
discussed the emergence of a nobility, and every time we discuss, what
motifs might underly a certain prehistoric action, this 'modern view of
things' surfaces.
If you want an example of the applicability, why not consider late Bronze
Age Graves. There is a famous case, where burials from the same era and
region were once interpreted as showing no great differences in burial
goods, interpreted as a communal society with little differentiation, or
were thought to show clear differentiations in the distribution of material
wealth, a segmented society with a clear social stratification. The main
difference was, what kind of modern view on societies were held by the
archaeologists.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Peter Alaca
> "Tom McDonald" wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [...]
Perhaps that is possible because we have
some (common) knowledge in common.
> I agree with the point made by that quotation and agree that, in spite
> of its specific reference to historians, it applies to archaeological
> interpretation as much as it does to psychological interpretations
> etc.
It is also fundamental for your social life.
Think before you judge people.
> In spite of it's general applicability, do you see it as an
> appropriate topic for this news group? (I'm not objecting but I
> wondered about your view of the matter).
If you are not objecting, I don't understand why your
question is necessary after Tom's reply.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
news:1148437008.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
As Uwe already mentioned (after you) it played an
important role in the discussion "The pacified past",
e.g. in the case of interpretation of ditched enclosures
as defended sites, and in the 'tools or wapons?' question.
And there are many more cases where it played a role.
> However, archaeological theory in general is clearly on-topic in
> an archaeological ng. I'd like to see much more of that, and much
> less of the interminable documentary threads.
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
An answer with the same implicit reference could be
'It is of direct relevance to (a) polynesian migration ...' etc.
But since I think Tom's and Uwe's replies are much better,
I don't see the need to for an answer anymore.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
It seems entirely reasonable. However, the relevance of quotation is
not peculiar to archaeology. Fundamentally it is relevant to the
application of epistemology to any observational science. I was
concerned that on the basis of recent discussions you might have
regarded it as too broad in its application to be classed as on-topic
within an archaeological news group. However, I am glad that you do
not.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:bqd772tj53bsv9nid...@4ax.com
It's not a question of common knowledge. Its a question of common
thinking.
>
>> I agree with the point made by that quotation and agree that, in spite
>> of its specific reference to historians, it applies to archaeological
>> interpretation as much as it does to psychological interpretations
>> etc.
>
>It is also fundamental for your social life.
>Think before you judge people.
Very good advice. Make sure you haven't judged other people on the
basis of your own culture, or way of articulating the world.
>
>> In spite of it's general applicability, do you see it as an
>> appropriate topic for this news group? (I'm not objecting but I
>> wondered about your view of the matter).
>
>If you are not objecting, I don't understand why your
>question is necessary after Tom's reply.
Merely elucidating the acceptable boundaries of the world of
archaeological discussion as it is seen by Tom (and you for that
matter).
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I preferred your later answers.
I am intrigued by the way you people who want to lay down boundaries
shy away from defining them.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:50:44 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote: news:j9u6725mou3i7lmu1...@4ax.com
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:18:13 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> I am intrigued by the way you people who want to lay down boundaries
> shy away from defining them.
You liked my definition of Archaeology, initially.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Aaron Gurevich (1992)
>>>>>> "Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages"
>>>>> How is this seen archaeologically?
>>>> Very good question, Eric!
>>>> [...]
>>> Gawd - Peter answers for you and you answer for Peter.
>> Perhaps that is possible because we have
>> some (common) knowledge in common.
> It's not a question of common knowledge.
> Its a question of common thinking.
Critical thinking inspired or strengthened by
what we are teached or have experienced.
For me what is expressed by Gurevich goes
without saying because I recognise it as
fundamental.
I guess it is also nothing new to many others
here, but a reminder now and then is not a bad
thing, and for some people it may be a new
perspective.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Aaron Gurevich (1992)
>>>> "Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages"
>>>> (quotes borrowed from Alan Macfarlane and Peter Pope)
>>> How is this seen archaeologically?
>> An answer with the same implicit reference could be
>> 'It is of direct relevance to (a) polynesian migration ...' etc.
>> But since I think Tom's and Uwe's replies are much better,
>> I don't see the need to for an answer anymore.
> I preferred your later answers.
>
> I am intrigued by the way you people who want to lay
> down boundaries shy away from defining them.
And I am intrigued by your boundaries obsession.
What is your intention: stay within or try to cross?
We 'people' don't want to lay down (new) boundaries.
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in my country
everyone is expected to know the law.
--
p.a.
Doug Weller
wrote:
Reminds me of the way you used to always answer for Larry Athy, very
frustrating. :-)
[SNIP]
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:l4a87299po1jave2a...@4ax.com
When I asked my original quaetion, I wasn't objecting to the ideas
expressed. Far from it!
It's so often that the style of people's thinking is shaped by their
experiences. In the case of soldiers its shaped by their training.
This is one of the fascinating things which came out of my
psychological studies of nearly 50 years ago. My old professor used to
remind us that he wasn't just teaching us about psychology but
brainwashing us into the correct (his) way of thinking about it. He
always grinned when he made that statement but he was so right.
Different schools of psychology could be clearly seen to be associated
with different schools of teaching. And the wars which used to take
place, with each school claiming to have the truth ... :-). I don't
imagine that all of this is unique to psychology.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>>Gawd - Peter answers for you and you answer for Peter.
>
>Reminds me of the way you used to always answer for Larry Athy, very
>frustrating. :-)
I don't think Larry ever used to answer for me.
Larry's case was different. As you will remember, his style of debate
was such that you could count on any discussion quickly turning into a
flame war. Yet he had some interesting ideas and I wanted to try and
discuss them without all the name calling. I used to try and beat
Larry to the punch with a response in the hope I would provoke an
intelligent reply from someone before Larry had a chance to stir the
pot. It sometimes happened.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I did, and I still do. "Archaeology is the science that uses artefacts
to learn about people". However, having given further thought to your
definition, I concluded that sticking rigorously to that definition
would exclude pollen studies, insect studies, post-mortem studies,
DNA and probably many other techniques which do not make use of direct
artifacts. That's why I eventually abandoned the use of the word
'artifact' for my preferred definition. It's too restrictive.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:sea8721nd9q92slh1...@4ax.com
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Aaron Gurevich (1992)
>>>>> "Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages"
>>>>> (quotes borrowed from Alan Macfarlane and Peter Pope)
>
>>>> How is this seen archaeologically?
>
>>> An answer with the same implicit reference could be
>>> 'It is of direct relevance to (a) polynesian migration ...' etc.
>>> But since I think Tom's and Uwe's replies are much better,
>>> I don't see the need to for an answer anymore.
>
>> I preferred your later answers.
>>
>> I am intrigued by the way you people who want to lay
>> down boundaries shy away from defining them.
>
>And I am intrigued by your boundaries obsession.
>What is your intention: stay within or try to cross?
Stay within, but first one has to know where the agreed boundaries
are.
>
>We 'people' don't want to lay down (new) boundaries.
>I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in my country
>everyone is expected to know the law.
But your laws are written and can be enunciated for the benefit of
anyone who asks. Laws which are no more than what the current judge
thinks they are is no law at all.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:44:29 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
DNA? I thought it was geneticists who did that, not archaeologists. If
you think it's archaeologists, no wonder you are confused.
I still prefer material culture. As for pollen studies, they are only of
interest to archaeologists if related to material culture. Ditto insect
studies, etc.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2006 18:10:26 +0100, Doug Weller
It was still irritating and made it even harder to have a discussion with
Larry about his ideas.
Eric Stevens
Aah here is an important difference between us.
You (and, I suspect, several others) are primarily interested in
material culture while I regard that as merely one of the paths by
means of which one can undertake the "systematic _study_ of_ past_
_human_life_and_culture_ by the recovery and examination of remaining
material evidence". See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/archaeology
**Material evidence** includes pollen, insects, bone lesions, DNA as
well as pot sherds, axes, spears, post holes and other things
(including maps :-). I think this difference of interpretation is at
the root of the disagreements of recent weeks.
In any case, I see no reason why archaeologists should wear blinkers
which prevent them from seeing any evidence which is not a man-made
artifact.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
There are many branches of science working on learning about historic
changes. Archaeologists study atrtefacts, geneticists study DNA, biologists
study pollen, macro remains, snail shells, tree rings, there are geologists,
physicists, and and and
Not all historic study is Archaeology.
My definition becomes hazy when you consider the strata in the ground,
because many are no direct consequence of human actions, but consequences of
consequences. That is where I expected criticism.
A post hole, or a row of post holes is clearly archaeology, but what about a
sedimentation layer in a ditch? It all burns down to the methods available,
and that is where archaeology is different from biology, physics, history,
whatever. Using those methods comes with a sort of sanity clause though,
there are limitations to them, and if you forget that, your results will be
bullshit. That is why archaeologic methods do not normally work for single
persons or singular artefacts.
Of course I'd like to be an expert in history, geology, archaeobiology,
physics and chemistry too, besides being an archaeologist, and I have
picked up some useful stuff from them.
So I would (at least till I can think of a better defintion encompassing
strata and layers [Befunde in German]) define archaeology on the basis of
its methods and aims and not try to have all kinds of historically oriented
research under the name of Archaeology.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
IE J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:5gea72d0hfhm2dt4b...@4ax.com...
And there are only fools who dismiss maps and written documentation when
reading the results from pollenanalyses and DNA tests. Only fools where
blinkers. Never ever met one single archaeologists who doesn't use medieval
maps and medieval written sources rather than todays maps and todays works!
And I have met hundreds of archaeologists, worked as well as studied
together with many of them as well as known some since I was a child.
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Peter Alaca
I agree with you, even with your bare-bone definition.
But I think the least confusing definition is
"Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
(David Clarke, Antiquity 47(1973)1)
Then it is for Eric to find out what they do.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
blinkers to distinguish them for your benefit from
historians, geologists of variuos kinds, palynologists,
geneticists, palynologists, chemists, biologists of
varions kinds, ecologists, hydrologists, photographers,
pilots, restorers, geographers, ....
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>>>> I did, and I still do. "Archaeology is the science that uses
There is no reason why archaeologists,historians, geologists of
various kinds, palynologists, geneticists (like PRD), palynologists,
chemists, biologists of varions kinds, ecologists, hydrologists,
photographers, pilots, restorers, geographers should wear blinkers to
enable one to be distinguished from another.
But most of these are specialist subgroups and there is no reason why
archaeologists should either ignore or not discuss/take into account
the narrower field of work of the specialist subgroups. If they do
they are ignoring substantial amounts of remaining material evidence
relevant to the study of human life and culture.
http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
"As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place in
Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well as
historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows. The addition
of a dash of DNA to television documentaries on archaeological
subjects has become almost de rigueur while, in academic circles,
there is a proliferation of research initiatives and conferences
that seek to link molecular genetics and human history. I was
struck by the genuine attempts at communication between scholars of
different academic disciplines at a recent international conference
on the genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence for human
migrations, compared with similar meetings in the past. There is
little doubt that molecular genetics has taken an important place
among the academic disciplines engaged in the study of our species
and is likely to become a required subject in archaeology
undergraduate courses in the not too distant future."
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Uwe,
I know you responded to this article but finger trouble at this end
caused you reply to be deleted. Would you mind reposting it?
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "Uwe Müller" wrote:
>>>> You liked my definition of Archaeology, initially.
>>>>> I did, and I still do. "Archaeology is the science that uses
But what makes you think they ignore these things?
How do you call the guys dealing with material culture?
Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
and I can add that not all study of human life and
culture is archaeology.
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
> concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place in
> Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well as
> historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows.
Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
genetics and archaeology are the same!
> The addition
> of a dash of DNA to television documentaries on archaeological
> subjects has become almost de rigueur while, in academic circles,
> there is a proliferation of research initiatives and conferences
> that seek to link molecular genetics and human history. I was
> struck by the genuine attempts at communication between scholars of
> different academic disciplines at a recent international conference
> on the genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence for human
> migrations, compared with similar meetings in the past. There is
> little doubt that molecular genetics has taken an important place
> among the academic disciplines engaged in the study of our species
> and is likely to become a required subject in archaeology
> undergraduate courses in the not too distant future."
>
--
p.a.
Doug Weller
Eric seems to be the one with blinkers, or something.
There are lots of different professions that study humanity's past. As you
point out in a later post then this, bedfellows are still different
people!
Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:25:31 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
> wrote:
<snip>
> There is no reason why archaeologists,historians, geologists of
> various kinds, palynologists, geneticists (like PRD), palynologists,
> chemists, biologists of varions kinds, ecologists, hydrologists,
> photographers, pilots, restorers, geographers should wear blinkers to
> enable one to be distinguished from another.
>
> But most of these are specialist subgroups and there is no reason why
> archaeologists should either ignore or not discuss/take into account
> the narrower field of work of the specialist subgroups. If they do
> they are ignoring substantial amounts of remaining material evidence
> relevant to the study of human life and culture.
Do you think archaeologists really do ignore or fail to discuss or fail
to take into account relevant stuff from the aformentioned specialists?
If so, that POV is ignorant and insulting.
I suspect most archaeologists use internal combustion engines to get
them to and from archaeological sites. Therefore, the latest offering
from Land Rover is on-topic in s.a. Right?
<snip>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:8qsa7292jomhud5km...@4ax.com
If you read what I wrote you will see I was referring to aspects of
archaeology which cannot be described simply as material culture.
>
>Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>and I can add that not all study of human life and
>culture is archaeology.
That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
archaeology.
>
>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
>> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
>> concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place in
>> Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well as
>> historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows.
>
>Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
>genetics and archaeology are the same!
Who on earth would try to argue that they are?
>
>> The addition
>> of a dash of DNA to television documentaries on archaeological
>> subjects has become almost de rigueur while, in academic circles,
>> there is a proliferation of research initiatives and conferences
>> that seek to link molecular genetics and human history. I was
>> struck by the genuine attempts at communication between scholars of
>> different academic disciplines at a recent international conference
>> on the genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence for human
>> migrations, compared with similar meetings in the past. There is
>> little doubt that molecular genetics has taken an important place
>> among the academic disciplines engaged in the study of our species
>> and is likely to become a required subject in archaeology
>> undergraduate courses in the not too distant future."
>>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
Uwe responded to the above by email. Here is what he sent me and my
response:
>
>There are many branches of science working on learning about historic
>changes. Archaeologists study atrtefacts, geneticists study DNA, biologists
>study pollen, macro remains, snail shells, tree rings, there are geologists,
>physicists, and and and
>
>Not all historic study is Archaeology.
>
>My definition becomes hazy when you consider the strata in the ground,
>because many are no direct consequence of human actions, but consequences of
>consequences. That is where I expected criticism.
>
>A post hole, or a row of post holes is clearly archaeology, but what about a
>sedimentation layer in a ditch? It all burns down to the methods available,
>and that is where archaeology is different from biology, physics, history,
>whatever. Using those methods comes with a sort of sanity clause though,
>there are limitations to them, and if you forget that, your results will be
>bullshit. That is why archaeologic methods do not normally work for single
>persons or singular artefacts.
>
>Of course I'd like to be an expert in history, geology, archaeobiology,
>physics and chemistry too, besides being an archaeologist, and I have
>picked up some useful stuff from them.
>
>So I would (at least till I can think of a better defintion encompassing
>strata and layers [Befunde in German]) define archaeology on the basis of
>its methods and aims and not try to have all kinds of historically oriented
>research under the name of Archaeology.
>
Thank you for reposting (by email to me) the article which I have
lost.
My own situation is a good analogy to what I have been trying to say
about what it is that comprises archaeology. These days I call myself
a 'Forensic Engineer' as that is what everyone tells me I am. My
principal job is investigating accidents and failures for lawyers and
insurance companies. People usually bring these problems to me because
they involve the failure of a physical artifact.
Sometimes matters of pure mechanical engineering are at the root of
the failure and this requires only contemplation of the failed
artifact. Mor commonly the failure is surrounded by a cloud of
associated happenings with no direct relevance to 'pure' mechanical
engineering. Using recent work as an example, I have had to know about
aerodynamics, although I am not an aerodynamacist. I have had to know
about metallurgy, although I am not a metallurgist. I have had to know
about computer programming, although I am not a computer programmer. I
have had to know about fire in buildings, although I am not a fire
engineer. Even though I know about these specialist fields I am an
expert in few of them and have to know when to call in the necessary
specialist expertise. Further, in the process of reaching my own
conclusions I have to be able to discuss these specialist disciplines
intelligently in my reports. In other words, there is an overlap
between these specialties and the world of Forensic Engineering.
I see the same situation existing in the world of archaeology. The
recent (ongoing?) discussion with Doug Weller has identified the core
of the problem. Is archaeology about (1) recovering the past or is it
restricted to (2) using 'artifacts' to recover the past?
My own personal view is that (2) is a subset of (1) and while (2) is
undoubtedly archaeology it is not the whole of archaeology. For
centuries man had no physical evidence other than artifacts as to the
past and that has come to shape the common view of what it is that
comprises archaeology. I suppose the change started with Olof Rudbeck
who in the 17th century started using the thickness of soil layers as
a dating tool, and it has gone on from there. That is why I now prefer
a definition of archaeology that is not based on what archaeologists
presently do but what it is they are actually trying to do which is
undertake the "systematic _study_ of_ past_human_life_and_culture_ by
the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence". Anything
which supports this objective is part of archaeology.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
That again is no answer to my questions,
>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>> culture is archaeology.
>
> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
> archaeology.
"Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
>>> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
>>> concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place
>>> in Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well as
>>> historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows.
>>
>> Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
>> genetics and archaeology are the same!
>
> Who on earth would try to argue that they are?
It is /your/ quote. You must have some reason
to quote that.
>> [...]
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:25:31 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
>> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> There is no reason why archaeologists,historians, geologists of
>> various kinds, palynologists, geneticists (like PRD), palynologists,
>> chemists, biologists of varions kinds, ecologists, hydrologists,
>> photographers, pilots, restorers, geographers should wear blinkers to
>> enable one to be distinguished from another.
>>
>> But most of these are specialist subgroups and there is no reason why
>> archaeologists should either ignore or not discuss/take into account
>> the narrower field of work of the specialist subgroups. If they do
>> they are ignoring substantial amounts of remaining material evidence
>> relevant to the study of human life and culture.
>
>Do you think archaeologists really do ignore or fail to discuss or fail
>to take into account relevant stuff from the aformentioned specialists?
>If so, that POV is ignorant and insulting.
Of course I don't think archaeologists ignore all the *relevant* stuff
from "the aformentioned specialists". It's just that certain members
of this news group do not seem to want any aspect of that 'stuff' to
be discussed in isolation on this news group, even when the relevance
of that particular aspect to an archaeological problem is obvious to
them.
>
>I suspect most archaeologists use internal combustion engines to get
>them to and from archaeological sites. Therefore, the latest offering
>from Land Rover is on-topic in s.a. Right?
It most certainly is, if it is essential to the "systematic _study_
of_ past_human_life_and_culture_ by the recovery and examination of
remaining material evidence". On the other hand, if it makes no
difference whether the archaeologist travels by a Land cruiser, a
Clydesdale or Shanks's Pony then I would say that the Landrover is of
no relevance to the archaeological conclusion and is not on-topic for
this news group.
If pulling a particular thing out of the decision-making process makes
no difference to the decision then that thing is not relevant to the
decision-making process. On the other hand, if driving to the site in
a land Cruiser causes you to reach a unique conclusion about a
particular past human life and culture then I would say that the
choice of transport is somehow relevant to the study of the particular
past human life and culture. But I don't really expect that to be the
case. :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:uccc7258n35428dct...@4ax.com
I was merely restoring the discussion to my original line of
reasoning. Whether or not any particular person actuall does ignore
or not discuss/take into account the narrower field of work of the
specialist subgroups is irrelevant. I was discussing the consequence
of them doing that.
As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they ignore all
the other aspects for consideration. I'm not trying to exclude
anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>
>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>> culture is archaeology.
>>
>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>> archaeology.
>
>"Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over the
years.
>
>>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
>>>> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
>>>> concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place
>>>> in Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well as
>>>> historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows.
>>>
>>> Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
>>> genetics and archaeology are the same!
>>
>> Who on earth would try to argue that they are?
>
>It is /your/ quote. You must have some reason
>to quote that.
It's my quote but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> I was merely restoring the discussion to my original line of
> reasoning. Whether or not any particular person actuall does ignore
> or not discuss/take into account the narrower field of work of the
> specialist subgroups is irrelevant. I was discussing the consequence
> of them doing that.
But before you can discuss the consequences,
it is your duty to prove that archaeologists are
"ignoring substantial amounts of remaining
material evidence relevant to the study of
human life and culture".
Therefore I repeat my question
What makes you think they ignore these things?
> As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
> archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they
> ignore all the other aspects for consideration.
I thought that your concern is the definition of
archaeology, not the status of archaeologists.
> I'm not trying to exclude anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>>> culture is archaeology.
>>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>>> archaeology.
>> "Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
> I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over
> the years.
Oh realy? Well, in that case the definition is the
one for 1827, the year that Reuvens started his
excavation of Arentsburg.
>>>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
>>>>> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
>>>>> concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place
>>>>> in Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well
>>>>> as historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows.
>>>> Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
>>>> genetics and archaeology are the same!
>
>>> Who on earth would try to argue that they are?
>> It is /your/ quote. You must have some reason
>> to quote that.
> It's my quote but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.
So what do you think it says? What was the point
of quoting that in the context of the discussion other
than as support for your view that a definition of
archaeology must encompass genetics?
What you are looking for is not a definition
but a handbook.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Nonsense. Have you never encountered a "thought experiment"? How about
a hypothetical situation?
>Therefore I repeat my question
>What makes you think they ignore these things?
>
>> As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
>> archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they
>> ignore all the other aspects for consideration.
>
>I thought that your concern is the definition of
>archaeology, not the status of archaeologists.
Huh. I though you might be tem[pted to come up with that
interpretation. Would it have been easier to understand if I wrote
'subset'?
>
>> I'm not trying to exclude anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>
>>>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>>>> culture is archaeology.
>
>>>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>>>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>>>> archaeology.
>
>>> "Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
>
>> I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over
>> the years.
>
>Oh realy? Well, in that case the definition is the
>one for 1827, the year that Reuvens started his
>excavation of Arentsburg.
What did they do in 1702?
Apart from that, for the sake of discussion, I'm happy to accept as
archaeology whatever it is that archaeologists do but, when you have
whole mob of people doing things, how do you tell which ones are
archeologists and which ones are not?
>
>>>>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
>>>>>> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three books
>>>>>> concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out of place
>>>>>> in Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and genetics, as well
>>>>>> as historical linguistics, are becoming close bedfellows.
>
>>>>> Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
>>>>> genetics and archaeology are the same!
>>
>>>> Who on earth would try to argue that they are?
>
>>> It is /your/ quote. You must have some reason
>>> to quote that.
>
>> It's my quote but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.
>
>So what do you think it says? What was the point
>of quoting that in the context of the discussion other
>than as support for your view that a definition of
>archaeology must encompass genetics?
It must encompass a knowledge of genetics. Ask Philip Dietiker.
>
>What you are looking for is not a definition
>but a handbook.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
It was no thought experiment. You reached a conclusion.
"Aah here is an important difference between us." etc.
>> Therefore I repeat my question
>> What makes you think they ignore these things?
>>> As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
>>> archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they
>>> ignore all the other aspects for consideration.
>> I thought that your concern is the definition of
>> archaeology, not the status of archaeologists.
> Huh. I though you might be tempted to come up with that
> interpretation. Would it have been easier to understand if I wrote
> 'subset'?
I have no problems in understanding you.
>>> I'm not trying to exclude anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>>>>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>>>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>>>>> culture is archaeology.
>>>>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>>>>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>>>>> archaeology.
>>>> "Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
>>> I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over
>>> the years.
>> Oh realy? Well, in that case the definition is the
>> one for 1827, the year that Reuvens started his
>> excavation of Arentsburg.
> What did they do in 1702?
There were no professional archaeologist in 1702.
Reuvens was the first in the world.
All the others are called 'antiquarians' or 'pothunters'
> Apart from that, for the sake of discussion, I'm happy to accept as
> archaeology whatever it is that archaeologists do but, when you have
> whole mob of people doing things, how do you tell which ones are
> archeologists and which ones are not?
Easy. They wear blinkers.
>>>>>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/reviews/hagelberg.html
>>>>>>> "As recently as ten or fifteen years ago, a review of three
>>>>>>> books concerned mainly with DNA studies would have seemed out
>>>>>>> of place in Antiquity. Today, however, archaeology and
>>>>>>> genetics, as well as historical linguistics, are becoming
>>>>>>> close bedfellows.
>>>>>> Bedfellows perhaps, but that doesn't mean that
>>>>>> genetics and archaeology are the same!
>>>>> Who on earth would try to argue that they are?
>>>> It is /your/ quote. You must have some reason
>>>> to quote that.
>>> It's my quote but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.
>> So what do you think it says? What was the point
>> of quoting that in the context of the discussion other
>> than as support for your view that a definition of
>> archaeology must encompass genetics?
> It must encompass a knowledge of genetics.
Only of the possibilities.
> Ask Philip Dietiker.
Philip is no archaeologist.
If an archaeologist needs genetic information
he may ask a geneticist, and a geneticist
may ask an archaeologist to collect material.
That doesn't make a geneticist an archaeologist.
An archaeologist also takes samples of soil for
pollenanalyse, and wood and charcoal for dating,
but the analyse is done by specialists in that
field, not by archaeologists.
>> What you are looking for is not a definition
>> but a handbook.
--
p.a.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:09:21 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
I'm afraid I wouldn't ask him anything about archaeology. It is
definitely not his field. :-)
>>
>>What you are looking for is not a definition
>>but a handbook.
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Doug Weller" wrote...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:37:38 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:09:21 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
>>wrote:
[...]
>>>So what do you think it says? What was the point
>>>of quoting that in the context of the discussion other
>>>than as support for your view that a definition of
>>>archaeology must encompass genetics?
>>
>>It must encompass a knowledge of genetics. Ask Philip Dietiker.
no, archaeology does not have to encompass a knowledge of genetics (there
you go with those absolutes again). archaeology encompasses a knowledge of
genetics when that knowledge is relevant to the archaeological context.
i.e.; use-ware analysis is relevant to archaeology when in an archaeological
context, but no knowledge of (or need for) genetics is a 'must' for
use-ware. but you already knew that. ;-)
<snip>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:j8md72d0he67j83gm...@4ax.com
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>
--- well - somebody has to snip it -----
You are trying to change the subject. You are trying to change my
conditional statement "If they do they are ignoring substantial
amounts of remaining material evidence..." into an assertion "they
ignore substantial amounts of remaining material evidence...". If you
want to play word games I suggest you try and find someone else to
play with.
>
>>> Therefore I repeat my question
>>> What makes you think they ignore these things?
>
>>>> As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
>>>> archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they
>>>> ignore all the other aspects for consideration.
>
>>> I thought that your concern is the definition of
>>> archaeology, not the status of archaeologists.
>
>> Huh. I though you might be tempted to come up with that
>> interpretation. Would it have been easier to understand if I wrote
>> 'subset'?
>
>I have no problems in understanding you.
So why do you so often pick the wrong meaning?
>
>>>> I'm not trying to exclude anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>
>>>>>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>>>>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>>>>>> culture is archaeology.
>
>>>>>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>>>>>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>>>>>> archaeology.
>
>>>>> "Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
>
>>>> I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over
>>>> the years.
>
>>> Oh realy? Well, in that case the definition is the
>>> one for 1827, the year that Reuvens started his
>>> excavation of Arentsburg.
>
>> What did they do in 1702?
>
>There were no professional archaeologist in 1702.
>Reuvens was the first in the world.
>All the others are called 'antiquarians' or 'pothunters'
Aah. But you have defined archaeology is what archeologists do. It
follows that if there was anyone doing these things in 1702 then they
too must have been archaeologists.
And yet he makes (some :-) worthwhile contributions to this news
group, particularly where genetics is concerned. What is more you have
been happy to engage in the same threads as Philip so you must regard
them as on-topic to archaeology.
>
>If an archaeologist needs genetic information
>he may ask a geneticist, and a geneticist
>may ask an archaeologist to collect material.
>That doesn't make a geneticist an archaeologist.
>An archaeologist also takes samples of soil for
>pollenanalyse, and wood and charcoal for dating,
>but the analyse is done by specialists in that
>field, not by archaeologists.
And the interpretation is done by the same specialists? Come on now.
The interpretation is done by the archaeologist who must know enough
about the specialist subject to understand what the specialist is
telling him. What is more, the archaeologist has to know enough about
the specialist subject to be able to defend the interpretation that he
(or she) has placed on the specialist information. The idea that these
aspects are not part of archaeology is fundamentally flawed.
>
>>> What you are looking for is not a definition
>>> but a handbook.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Tedd,
I think you understand both what I wrote and the article I originally
quoted. No one would (I hope) expect archaeologists to know as much
about genetics as would a specialist geneticist. However, they should
know enough to enable them to take genetics into account "when that
knowledge is relevant to the archaeological context.". But then I
think you already knew that too. :-)
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
[...]
> Tedd,
>
> I think you understand both what I wrote and the article I originally
> quoted. No one would (I hope) expect archaeologists to know as much
> about genetics as would a specialist geneticist. However, they should
> know enough to enable them to take genetics into account "when that
> knowledge is relevant to the archaeological context.". But then I
> think you already knew that too. :-)
still waiting for that bottle of scotch. :-P~
;-)
IE J
should be defined and interpreted.
Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition according
to their belief,
I looked for the best US universities today, and their definition and how
they combine the subjects of Archaeology and History. In other words how do
they in their programs propose a graditude student to go for a MA or a Ph.D
exam. I urge you to read Berkeley's pages before you who tries to bend the
definitions your own way.
Berkeley: http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/ahma/program.html
"The University of California at Berkeley offers graduate study in Ancient
History and Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Archaeology (AHMA). The
AHMA program is interdisciplinary, conducted by over thirty faculty members
in ten departments and the Graduate Theological Union.
Offering M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in areas that combine work in archaeology
and history with related disciplines of ancient studies, most graduates
secure teaching positions in departments of Classics, Art History, History,
Anthropology or Near Eastern Studies in colleges and universities around the
world.
Students in "the Group," as the AHMA program is also known, are expected to
master two ancient and two modern languages, to enroll in advanced courses
and seminars from two or more departments, and to obtain practical
archaeological experience. "
Before continuing I would like to know any archaeologist who can call
himself an archaeologist if he or she at least haven't had ancient History
in their exam and knowledge about the Mediterranian Archaeology?
Or do you dispute that these two knowledges are needed to make a good
archaeologist?
Now if you look at anthropology dept:
http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/anth/dept.html
you will find that the first choice to push is 'College of letter and
science' http://ls.berkeley.edu/
Need one say more?
Inger E
Doug Weller
>Eric S have made good contribution, better then most on how archaeology
>should be defined and interpreted.
>Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition according
>to their belief,
>I looked for the best US universities today, and their definition and how
>they combine the subjects of Archaeology and History. In other words how do
>they in their programs propose a graditude student to go for a MA or a Ph.D
>exam. I urge you to read Berkeley's pages before you who tries to bend the
>definitions your own way.
>
>Berkeley: http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/ahma/program.html
>"The University of California at Berkeley offers graduate study in Ancient
>History and Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Archaeology (AHMA). The
>AHMA program is interdisciplinary, conducted by over thirty faculty members
>in ten departments and the Graduate Theological Union.
Yes, that's a combined degree, not an archaeology degree. No one denies
that they exist.
>
>Offering M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in areas that combine work in archaeology
>and history with related disciplines of ancient studies, most graduates
>secure teaching positions in departments of Classics, Art History, History,
>Anthropology or Near Eastern Studies in colleges and universities around the
>world.
Yep. Classics, Art His troy, Anthropology or Near Eastern Studies. It
doesn't mention Departments of Archaeology. It's not a specialist
archaeology degree. It is not an example of how archaeology as a
specialist discipline is taught, it is an example of how you can combine
archaeology with history to create specialists in subjects such as Near
Eastern subjects.
>
>Students in "the Group," as the AHMA program is also known, are expected to
>master two ancient and two modern languages, to enroll in advanced courses
>and seminars from two or more departments, and to obtain practical
>archaeological experience. "
>
>Before continuing I would like to know any archaeologist who can call
>himself an archaeologist if he or she at least haven't had ancient History
>in their exam and knowledge about the Mediterranian Archaeology?
>Or do you dispute that these two knowledges are needed to make a good
>archaeologist?
That is an incredibly silly statement, Inger.
Why would anyone need to know ancient history and the archaeology of the
Med to study prehistoric North America? Or the Paleolithic of Britain?
>
>Now if you look at anthropology dept:
>http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/anth/dept.html
>you will find that the first choice to push is 'College of letter and
>science' http://ls.berkeley.edu/
>Need one say more?
>
>Inger E
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dylan Sung
"IE J" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:frSdg.2161$E02...@newsb.telia.net...
> Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition according
> to their belief,
How ironic!
Dyl.
Eric Stevens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
"In the Old World, archaeology has tended to focus on the study of
physical remains, the methods used in recovering them and the
theoretical and philosophical underpinnings in achieving the
subject's goals. The discipline's roots in antiquarianism and the
study of Latin and Ancient Greek provided it with a natural
affinity with the field of history. In the New World, archaeology
is more commonly devoted to the study of human societies and is
treated as one of the four subfields of Anthropology."
http://archaeology.about.com/od/pterms/g/postprocess.htm
"Archaeology at its best is a study sturdily balanced between
anthropology (as the study of human cultures), history (as the
study of human historical and prehistoric past), and archaeometry
(as the science of decay)."
No two people will agree. Tolerance is required.
Eric Stevens
IE J
"Dylan Sung" <dylanwhs....@pacific.net.hk> skrev i meddelandet
news:e591g9$vn8$1...@nntp.aioe.org...
I am glad that you finally realise how far from the truth you and the other
naysayer are re. what's inside topic for archaeologist and other discussing
archaeology sites, findings and sorroundings!. :-) :-)
Inger E
Peter Alaca
No, I respond to what you say.
> You are trying to change my
> conditional statement "If they do they are ignoring substantial
> amounts of remaining material evidence..." into an assertion "they
> ignore substantial amounts of remaining material evidence...". If you
> want to play word games I suggest you try and find someone else to
> play with.
How conditional is this?
"Aah here is an important difference between us..."
"If they do they are ignoring substantial amounts
of remaining material evidence..."
Nothing in Doug's answer justifies such a 'conditional'
conclusion.
>>>> Therefore I repeat my question
>>>> What makes you think they ignore these things?
>>
>>>>> As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
>>>>> archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they
>>>>> ignore all the other aspects for consideration.
>>
>>>> I thought that your concern is the definition of
>>>> archaeology, not the status of archaeologists.
>>
>>> Huh. I though you might be tempted to come up with that
>>> interpretation. Would it have been easier to understand if I wrote
>>> 'subset'?
>>
>> I have no problems in understanding you.
>
> So why do you so often pick the wrong meaning?
You mean that I ask questions you don't want to answer?
And where was the wrong meaning when I wrote
"I thought that your concern is the definition of archaeology..." ?
It was for you reason to suggest 'subset' instead of
'subclass', so who was wrong?
>>>>> I'm not trying to exclude anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>>>>>>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>>>>>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>>>>>>> culture is archaeology.
>>>>>>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>>>>>>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>>>>>>> archaeology.
>>>>>> "Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
>>>>> I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over
>>>>> the years.
>>>> Oh realy? Well, in that case the definition is the
>>>> one for 1827, the year that Reuvens started his
>>>> excavation of Arentsburg.
>>> What did they do in 1702?
>> There were no professional archaeologist in 1702.
>> Reuvens was the first in the world.
>> All the others are called 'antiquarians' or 'pothunters'
> Aah. But you have defined archaeology is what archeologists do.
> It follows that if there was anyone doing these things in 1702 then
> they too must have been archaeologists.
Is this one of your 'thought experiments' again?
Read it again and reconsider your logic.
>> Only of the possibilities.
>>> Ask Philip Dietiker.
>> Philip is no archaeologist.
So?
>> If an archaeologist needs genetic information
>> he may ask a geneticist, and a geneticist
>> may ask an archaeologist to collect material.
>> That doesn't make a geneticist an archaeologist.
>> An archaeologist also takes samples of soil for
>> pollenanalyse, and wood and charcoal for dating,
>> but the analyse is done by specialists in that
>> field, not by archaeologists.
> And the interpretation is done by the same specialists? Come on now.
> The interpretation is done by the archaeologist who must know enough
> about the specialist subject to understand what the specialist is
> telling him.
Like the dates with margin given to them? Yes.
> What is more, the archaeologist has to know enough about
> the specialist subject to be able to defend the interpretation that he
> (or she) has placed on the specialist information.
His defence is in using a renownd laboratory
for the requested analyses. He sends charcoal
or wood to a laboratory and recieves a dating back.
Even the sampling of the wood is often done by
a specialist from the laboratory.
> The idea that these
> aspects are not part of archaeology is fundamentally flawed.
/You/ are fundamentally flawed
>>>> What you are looking for is not a definition
>>>> but a handbook.
That is worth repeating
What you are looking for is not a definition but a handbook.
--
p.a.
IE J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:fc5g729rvijs9dlvl...@4ax.com...
Yes it is. Which includes that none should try to make fun or protest
against what that person himself beliefs. Not only tolerance but acceptance
that we here in the Old World see Archaeology and History on same levels
helping each other and that Anthropology isn't any more very much thought to
be able to give answers the way the 19th and early 20th century scholars
believed that subject to be. Back then anthropologists where held high. The
most interesting thing is when realising that the reason why anthropology
isn't held high here is WWII and the racist perspective of Nazis and
others....
quote from definition of Anthropology in 'Nordisk Familjebok 1876' :
"...Antropologien omfattar,
i enlighet med ofvanstående definition, tre
olika afdelningar, näml. zoologisk antropologi ,
som undersöker menniskoslägtet i dess förhållande
till den öfriga naturen, såsom t. ex. till aporna;
allmän antropologi , som har till föremål studiet af
menniskoslägtet i dess sammanfattningar, i det hon
jämför de skilda folken och raserna med hvarandra i
afseende på fysiska och psykiska skiljaktigheter;
deskriptiv antropologi, som sysselsätter sig med
menniskoslägtet i dess enskildheter, såväl dess
anatomiska och fysiologiska, som dess intellektuella
och moraliska egenskaper (ungefär liktydig med
etnologi). Dit hör sålunda studiet af variationerna
i hudens färg, i beskaffenheten af håret, hjernan,
kraniet (kraniologi), af kroppens proportioner,
lukten o. s. v., men äfven vexlingarna i social
och intellektuel utveckling.
quick translation:
Anthropology include according to definition above, three different
branches, that is Zoologic Anthropology,
where studies of humankind in relation to other nature [IEJ: factors], such
as the apes,
General anthropology, which aims the study of humankind in it's outline, in
it the different people and races are compared with it's other in respect
of physical and psychologic differences;
Descriptive antropology, dealing with humankind in it's anatomic and
physiologic, such as intellectual and moralic qualities(almost identical
with etnologi). Included in this is the studies of variation in skin color,
the type of hear, the brain, the cranium, the proportions of the body, the
smell etc. but also the changes in social and intellectual development"
You better belive me when I say I think many of the naysayers, who sticks to
the anthropologic science above archaeology, to be out of their corners.
Anthropology was used by the Nazists and Racists here in the Old World. That
I would assumed that every scholar interested in archaeology and/or history
was aware of!
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Peter Alaca
> "Dylan Sung" skrev
>> "IE J" wrote
>>> Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition
>>> according to their belief,
>> How ironic!
> I am glad that you finally realise how far from the truth you and the
> other naysayer are re. what's inside topic for archaeologist and
> other discussing archaeology sites, findings and sorroundings!. :-)
> :-)
> Inger E
You don't even understand what Dylan was at.
Here is the explanation:
You wrote "Since the naysayers still tries to change subject ..."
but at the same time you changed again the subjectline.
What's more, the initial subject of this thread is not the
definition of archaeology. Eric changed it to that.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
> "In the Old World, archaeology has tended to focus on the study of
> physical remains, the methods used in recovering them and the
> theoretical and philosophical underpinnings in achieving the
> subject's goals. The discipline's roots in antiquarianism and the
> study of Latin and Ancient Greek provided it with a natural
> affinity with the field of history. In the New World, archaeology
> is more commonly devoted to the study of human societies and is
> treated as one of the four subfields of Anthropology."
>
> http://archaeology.about.com/od/pterms/g/postprocess.htm
> "Archaeology at its best is a study sturdily balanced between
> anthropology (as the study of human cultures), history (as the
> study of human historical and prehistoric past), and archaeometry
> (as the science of decay)."
>
> No two people will agree. Tolerance is required.
You keep posting this. Very Ingerish.
Go e.g. back to your thread "Can any two people agree .."
may 17 and read the responses.
One was:
"This division is false and the desciptions are
incomparable different and therefore misleading"
And on an earlier occasion one was:
"Note the "has tended". That time is long gone."
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> "Eric Stevens" skrev
>> No two people will agree. Tolerance is required.
> Yes it is. Which includes that none should try to make fun or protest
> against what that person himself beliefs.
There is no place for believe in science.
>[...]
I spared the part below emphasize Inger's stupidity.
> You better belive me when I say I think many of the naysayers, who
> sticks to the anthropologic science above archaeology, to be out of
> their corners. Anthropology was used by the Nazists and Racists here
> in the Old World. That I would assumed that every scholar interested
> in archaeology and/or history was aware of!
--
p.a.
IE J
any normal scholar will change back to subjectline or 'help' the run-away
person to find the track again! Teachers do it all the time!
Inger E
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:447829ad$1$85116$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
IE J
Once again you(Peter A) changed subjectline. As you do when ever you deep
within understand that you lost the 'battle'.
the only one who has been showing stupidity in this thread is the
person(=you) who used that word to run from subjectline discussed!
Inger E
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:44782b28$0$18647$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Dylan Sung
>
> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> skrev i meddelandet
> news:447829ad$1$85116$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> IE J wrote: news:TGUdg.2178$E02...@newsb.telia.net
>> > "Dylan Sung" skrev
>> >> "IE J" wrote
>>
>> >>> Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition
>> >>> according to their belief,
>>
>> >> How ironic!
>>
>> > I am glad that you finally realise how far from the truth you and the
>> > other naysayer are re. what's inside topic for archaeologist and
>> > other discussing archaeology sites, findings and sorroundings!. :-)
>> > :-)
>> > Inger E
>>
>> You don't even understand what Dylan was at.
>> Here is the explanation:
>> You wrote "Since the naysayers still tries to change subject ..."
>> but at the same time you changed again the subjectline.
>> What's more, the initial subject of this thread is not the
>> definition of archaeology. Eric changed it to that.
>>
>> --
>> p.a.
>>
>
> any normal scholar will change back to subjectline
How ironic.
Episode I : The Naysayer Menace.
Episode II : The Attack of the Subjectlines.
Episode III : The Revenge of the Non-Scholar.
> or 'help' the run-away
> person to find the track again! Teachers do it all the time!
>
> Inger E
>
The run-away person should be notified to authorities and the correct
department would be the Missing Persons Bureau. It is they who should track
them down. Teachers are often overstretched as it is.
Dyl.
Dylan Sung
> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> skrev i meddelandet
> news:44782b28$0$18647$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> IE J wrote: news:1QVdg.2183$E02...@newsb.telia.net
>>
>> > "Eric Stevens" skrev
>>
>> >> No two people will agree. Tolerance is required.
>>
>> > Yes it is. Which includes that none should try to make fun or protest
>> > against what that person himself beliefs.
>>
>> There is no place for believe in science.
>>
>> >[...]
>>
>> I spared the part below emphasize Inger's stupidity.
>>
>> > You better belive me when I say I think many of the naysayers, who
>> > sticks to the anthropologic science above archaeology, to be out of
>> > their corners. Anthropology was used by the Nazists and Racists here
>> > in the Old World. That I would assumed that every scholar interested
>> > in archaeology and/or history was aware of!
>>
>> --
>> p.a.
>>
>>
>
>
> Peter Alaca,
> Once again you(Peter A) changed subjectline. As you do when ever you deep
> within understand that you lost the 'battle'.
>
> the only one who has been showing stupidity in this thread is the
> person(=you) who used that word to run from subjectline discussed!
>
> Inger E
It was you who changed the subject line from
Re: Projection
to
How Archaeology is taught today Re: Projection
and now to
Answer to Peter A Re: How Archaeology is taught today Re: Projection
So, to use your words
> Once again you(Inger E J) changed subjectline. As you do when ever you
> deep
> within understand that you lost the 'battle'.
>
> the only one who has been showing stupidity in this thread is the
> person(=you) who used that word to run from subjectline discussed!
>
How Ironic.
Dyl.
Peter Alaca
> "IE J" wrote
>> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>>> IE J wrote:
>>>> "Dylan Sung" skrev
>>>>> "IE J" wrote
>>>>>> Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition
>>>>>> according to their belief,
>>>>> How ironic!
>>>> I am glad that you finally realise how far from the truth you and
>>>> the other naysayer are re. what's inside topic for archaeologist
>>>> and other discussing archaeology sites, findings and
>>>> sorroundings!. :-) :-)
>>>> Inger E
>>> You don't even understand what Dylan was at.
>>> Here is the explanation:
>>> You wrote "Since the naysayers still tries to change subject ..."
>>> but at the same time you changed again the subjectline.
>>> What's more, the initial subject of this thread is not the
>>> definition of archaeology. Eric changed it to that.
>> Peter A,
>> any normal scholar will change back to subjectline
>
> How ironic.
>
> Episode I : The Naysayer Menace.
Episode Ia : The Ignoring of the Obvious
> Episode II : The Attack of the Subjectlines.
> Episode III : The Revenge of the Non-Scholar.
>
>> or 'help' the run-away
>> person to find the track again! Teachers do it all the time!
>>
>> Inger E
>>
>
>
> The run-away person should be notified to authorities and the correct
> department would be the Missing Persons Bureau. It is they who should
> track them down. Teachers are often overstretched as it is.
Still to come: Episode 'Calling in the Dyslextics'
--
p.a.
Dylan Sung
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> wrote in message
news:447841eb$0$43500$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Synopsis:
After being severely hoisted on her own petard, Princess Iiier has sought
lessons in British English Pronunciation with Chewbacca, extensive English
Vocabulary from R2D2 and is teaching C3PO Advance Uppity Self Importance and
Snobbishness. The force of positivistic holisticism has lead her to the
swampworld of Dagobah, where she then learns Flexible English Grammar Theory
and Practice by the erudite scholar Master Yoda. Mired in the swamps of
Dagobah, she faces up to her worst nightmare, that she doesn't understand
irony.
Dyl.
Uwe Müller
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0kcc72hpcnvjc09ha...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:18:15 +1200, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:56:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
> ><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:44:29 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
> >><uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >>>news:sea8721nd9q92slh1...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:50:44 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >Eric Stevens wrote: news:j9u6725mou3i7lmu1...@4ax.com
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:18:13 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
> >>>> >> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> snip >
> >>>
> >>>> I am intrigued by the way you people who want to lay down boundaries
> >>>> shy away from defining them.
> >>>
> >>>You liked my definition of Archaeology, initially.
> >>
> >>I did, and I still do. "Archaeology is the science that uses artefacts
> >>to learn about people". However, having given further thought to your
> >>definition, I concluded that sticking rigorously to that definition
> >>would exclude pollen studies, insect studies, post-mortem studies,
> >>DNA and probably many other techniques which do not make use of direct
> >>artifacts. That's why I eventually abandoned the use of the word
> >>'artifact' for my preferred definition. It's too restrictive.
> >>
> >
> >I know you responded to this article but finger trouble at this end
> >caused you reply to be deleted. Would you mind reposting it?
> >
> Uwe responded to the above by email. Here is what he sent me and my
> response:
>
>
> >
> >There are many branches of science working on learning about historic
> >changes. Archaeologists study atrtefacts, geneticists study DNA,
biologists
> >study pollen, macro remains, snail shells, tree rings, there are
geologists,
> >physicists, and and and
> >
> >Not all historic study is Archaeology.
> >
> >because many are no direct consequence of human actions, but consequences
of
> >consequences. That is where I expected criticism.
> >
> >A post hole, or a row of post holes is clearly archaeology, but what
about a
> >sedimentation layer in a ditch? It all burns down to the methods
available,
> >and that is where archaeology is different from biology, physics,
history,
> >whatever. Using those methods comes with a sort of sanity clause though,
> >there are limitations to them, and if you forget that, your results will
be
> >bullshit. That is why archaeologic methods do not normally work for
single
> >persons or singular artefacts.
> >
> >Of course I'd like to be an expert in history, geology, archaeobiology,
> >physics and chemistry too, besides being an archaeologist, and I have
> >picked up some useful stuff from them.
> >
> >So I would (at least till I can think of a better defintion encompassing
> >strata and layers [Befunde in German]) define archaeology on the basis of
> >its methods and aims and not try to have all kinds of historically
oriented
> >research under the name of Archaeology.
> >
> Thank you for reposting (by email to me) the article which I have
> lost.
>
> My own situation is a good analogy to what I have been trying to say
> about what it is that comprises archaeology. These days I call myself
> a 'Forensic Engineer' as that is what everyone tells me I am. My
> principal job is investigating accidents and failures for lawyers and
> insurance companies. People usually bring these problems to me because
> they involve the failure of a physical artifact.
>
> Sometimes matters of pure mechanical engineering are at the root of
> the failure and this requires only contemplation of the failed
> artifact. Mor commonly the failure is surrounded by a cloud of
> associated happenings with no direct relevance to 'pure' mechanical
> engineering. Using recent work as an example, I have had to know about
> aerodynamics, although I am not an aerodynamacist. I have had to know
> about metallurgy, although I am not a metallurgist. I have had to know
> about computer programming, although I am not a computer programmer. I
> have had to know about fire in buildings, although I am not a fire
> engineer. Even though I know about these specialist fields I am an
> expert in few of them and have to know when to call in the necessary
> specialist expertise. Further, in the process of reaching my own
> conclusions I have to be able to discuss these specialist disciplines
> intelligently in my reports. In other words, there is an overlap
> between these specialties and the world of Forensic Engineering.
These specialisations are all from the world of engineering, they work with
comparable methods, and their results can be expressed in the same 'shop
language'.
This is not true for all the branches of historic studies.
>
> I see the same situation existing in the world of archaeology. The
> recent (ongoing?) discussion with Doug Weller has identified the core
> of the problem. Is archaeology about (1) recovering the past or is it
> restricted to (2) using 'artifacts' to recover the past?
Recovering the past is as good a description as historic studies. But there
are great differences in methods and results between the different branches
of science involved. Archaeology uses artefacts (in a wide sense) from
excavations to recover the past.
Archaeology as learning about the past in general and in toto (archaeo
logos) was a thing of the 17.-19. century (at least over here) before they
learned to read the ancient scripts and developed other technics too.
>
> My own personal view is that (2) is a subset of (1) and while (2) is
> undoubtedly archaeology it is not the whole of archaeology.
Wait, historic studies, or recovering the past (1), is one thing, and
archaeology (2) is another. I agree.
(2) is a subset of (1), I still agree, as are history, archaeobiology, etc.
But why should archaeology not be the whole of archaeology, one branch of
science contributing to historical studies? Why does it have to be (2) AND
(1)?
Why do you believe that archaeology should include history,
archaeobiology, nuclear physics, archaeastronomy, ...? Just because they can
be combined in historical studies, (1)?
And if so, wouldn't it be wiser to use two different words to distinguish
between the two different notions?
> For
> centuries man had no physical evidence other than artifacts as to the
> past and that has come to shape the common view of what it is that
> comprises archaeology.
The collection of ancient objects goes back to the beginning of the Cro
Magnon, archaeology has been used for 2.500 years. At this time the main
evidence about the past came from oral traditions, but there were always
older burial grounds, sacred places, that were believed to reach back in
time.
> I suppose the change started with Olof Rudbeck
> who in the 17th century started using the thickness of soil layers as
> a dating tool, and it has gone on from there. That is why I now prefer
> a definition of archaeology that is not based on what archaeologists
> presently do but what it is they are actually trying to do which is
> undertake the "systematic _study_ of_ past_human_life_and_culture_ by
> the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence". Anything
> which supports this objective is part of archaeology.
Current money would greatly support archaeology, but would it be part of
archaeology?
Or, the other way round, if everything supporting archaeology was part of
archaeology, would there be anything left?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>>>>>> How ironic!
>>> The run-away person should be notified to authorities and the
>>> correct department would be the Missing Persons Bureau. It is they
>>> who should track them down. Teachers are often overstretched as it
>>> is.
>> Still to come: Episode 'Calling in the Dyslextics'
> Synopsis:
>
> After being severely hoisted on her own petard, Princess Iiier has
> sought lessons in British English Pronunciation with Chewbacca,
> extensive English Vocabulary from R2D2 and is teaching C3PO Advance
> Uppity Self Importance and Snobbishness. The force of positivistic
> holisticism has lead her to the swampworld of Dagobah, where she then
> learns Flexible English Grammar Theory and Practice by the erudite
> scholar Master Yoda.
Master Yoda aka Mandan Stolphole
> Mired in the swamps of Dagobah, she faces up to
> her worst nightmare, that she doesn't understand irony.
Blackadder: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"
Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron."
--
p.a.
Tom McDonald
Tom McDonald
IE J wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
<snip>
Perhaps you could explain the meaning of the word "tolerance" to Inger
E. Johanssen. She does not seem to have grasped the concept.
You could have no better teaching tool than the above by the Madam.
It's almost like she wrote it specifically to be a case-in-point.
IE J
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1148754629....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric:
<snip>
"Tom McDonald" wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the meaning of the word "tolerance" to Inger
E. Johanssen. She does not seem to have grasped the concept.
IEJ answer: No need to express 'tolerance' to me. Better still learn what
'tolerance meen yourself!
Definition tolerance in OED:
" noun 1 the ability, willingness, or capacity to tolerate something. 2 an
allowable amount of variation of a specified quantity, especially in the
dimensions of a machine or part."
The time you Tom McDonald learn how to live up to that definition, then
your lines will not be as abusive as it is now and before! You also better
learn that a person who is under constant abuse-attack as I have been from
you and others who shown lack of all knowledge what tolerance means, not
only do such person, in this case I, have the full right to defend
her-/himself but also let your provider be aware of the abuse you are
writing under the subjectline that person, in this case I started.
I am fully aware of which 4 persons who tried to tell my supplier that I was
the abusive one - that personal attack by naysayers rendered in a confirmed
mail that my provider saw who the real abusers were, and that I should talk
to the Swedish Datainspection's layer for international affairs. He said
same as I tried to tell you, and you and the others better be clear that
there is a list ready to go to the international level in your own
respectively countries if you don't stop your abusive attacks! Btw police as
well as the Datainspektion say that such lines as yours and others falls
under the law of stalking in your country as well as in most other
countries.
It's also according to your own officials a criminal act from your and the
others side. But beware that it's not a criminal act for a person who been
such personally abused over and over by a group of people to defend herself
or himself!
If you don't tolerate my lines - you don't have to answer and above all you
could put a filter so you don't see the threads!!!!
Inger E
Tom McDonald
IE J wrote:
<snip>
So that's a 'no' on your learning what it means to tolerate others?
Huh.
> But beware that it's not a criminal act for a person who been
> such personally abused over and over by a group of people to defend herself
> or himself!
Great! According to you, that means I can abuse, name-call, libel and
generally treat badly yourself, Septic, and anyone else who has abused
me.
Good to know.
<snip>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> wrote in message
Oh Dyl, you forgot the "Datainspection"
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> "Tom McDonald" skrev
> IE J wrote:
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
>
> <snip>
>>> Tolerance is required.
>> [...]
> "Tom McDonald" wrote:
> Perhaps you could explain the meaning of the word "tolerance" to Inger
> E. Johanssen. She does not seem to have grasped the concept.
>
> IEJ answer: No need to express 'tolerance' to me. Better still learn
> what 'tolerance meen yourself!
> Definition tolerance in OED:
>
> " noun 1 the ability, willingness, or capacity to tolerate something.
- "A disposition to allow freedom of choice
and behaviour"
- "Willingness to recognize and respect the
beliefs or practices of others"
To restrict myself to the most recebnt example:
How do you think "naysayers, who sticks to
the anthropologic science above archaeology"
fit in that definition?
> [rest of blahblahblah snipped]
--
p.a.
Dylan Sung
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148758236.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
She did say it was good for your health, Tom.
Dyl.
Dylan Sung
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn> wrote in message
> IE J wrote: news:2E1eg.2294$E02...@newsb.telia.net
>
>> "Tom McDonald" skrev
>> IE J wrote:
>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
>>
>> <snip>
>
>>>> Tolerance is required.
>
>
>>> [...]
>
>> "Tom McDonald" wrote:
>> Perhaps you could explain the meaning of the word "tolerance" to Inger
>> E. Johanssen. She does not seem to have grasped the concept.
>>
>> IEJ answer: No need to express 'tolerance' to me. Better still learn
>> what 'tolerance meen yourself!
>> Definition tolerance in OED:
>>
>> " noun 1 the ability, willingness, or capacity to tolerate something.
>
> - "A disposition to allow freedom of choice
> and behaviour"
> - "Willingness to recognize and respect the
> beliefs or practices of others"
Tolerance, in a scientific setting, also refers to a threshold value beyond
which some action occurs. For example, the photoelectric effect where
electrons are liberated by the illumination of electromagnetic radiation
upon a metal surface. Or from a programming point of view, a limiting value
generally, but not always, concerning the differences between iterated
values
tol == 0.0001
if {
x(n) - x(n+1) <= tol
}
do {
something
}
enddo
Peter Alaca
Of course. "A permissible difference; allowing some
freedom to move within limits"
Syn. allowance, permissiveness
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>IE J wrote: news:TGUdg.2178$E02...@newsb.telia.net
Sorry Inger, this is an entirely separate thread from any of the ones
I have started. My sole contribution to this thread was my reply to
Doug in which I introduced the word 'tolerance'.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>IE J wrote: news:TGUdg.2178$E02...@newsb.telia.net
OOps,
Sorry Peter, I just responded to you as though it was Inger I was
responding to. It wasn't Inger, it was you.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:e2ve729kohhredt6p...@4ax.com
Yes, but not in the sequence of the thread.
>
>> You are trying to change my
>> conditional statement "If they do they are ignoring substantial
>> amounts of remaining material evidence..." into an assertion "they
>> ignore substantial amounts of remaining material evidence...". If you
>> want to play word games I suggest you try and find someone else to
>> play with.
>
>How conditional is this?
> "Aah here is an important difference between us..."
> "If they do they are ignoring substantial amounts
> of remaining material evidence..."
>Nothing in Doug's answer justifies such a 'conditional'
>conclusion.
>
Going back up the thread I see you are trying (belatedly) to have a
second bite at the cherry by attacking a statement I made several
posts later. My conditional statement 'if' was not made in direct
response to Doug. You are just trying to muddy the waters with a
confused argument.
>>>>> Therefore I repeat my question
>>>>> What makes you think they ignore these things?
>>>
>>>>>> As to the guys dealing with material culture, they are still
>>>>>> archaeologists, although they will be a subclass if they
>>>>>> ignore all the other aspects for consideration.
>>>
>>>>> I thought that your concern is the definition of
>>>>> archaeology, not the status of archaeologists.
>>>
>>>> Huh. I though you might be tempted to come up with that
>>>> interpretation. Would it have been easier to understand if I wrote
>>>> 'subset'?
>>>
>>> I have no problems in understanding you.
>>
>> So why do you so often pick the wrong meaning?
>
>You mean that I ask questions you don't want to answer?
You ask questions which are not directly to the point which I have
made.
>And where was the wrong meaning when I wrote
>"I thought that your concern is the definition of archaeology..." ?
Why not try and keep your questions in the context of the current
discussion?
>It was for you reason to suggest 'subset' instead of
>'subclass', so who was wrong?
Would you like to have another try at writing that? :-)
>
>>>>>> I'm not trying to exclude anybody, if anything, quite the reverse.
>
>>>>>>>>> Uwe said "Not all historic study is Archaeology."
>>>>>>>>> and I can add that not all study of human life and
>>>>>>>>> culture is archaeology.
>
>>>>>>>> That's logical but it would be helpful if you could produce a
>>>>>>>> definition which clearly sets out when something is or isn't
>>>>>>>> archaeology.
>
>>>>>>> "Archaeology is what archaeologists do"
>
>>>>>> I have to ask at what particular time as it keeps changing over
>>>>>> the years.
>
>>>>> Oh realy? Well, in that case the definition is the
>>>>> one for 1827, the year that Reuvens started his
>>>>> excavation of Arentsburg.
>
>>>> What did they do in 1702?
>
>>> There were no professional archaeologist in 1702.
>>> Reuvens was the first in the world.
>>> All the others are called 'antiquarians' or 'pothunters'
>
>> Aah. But you have defined archaeology is what archeologists do.
>> It follows that if there was anyone doing these things in 1702 then
>> they too must have been archaeologists.
>
>Is this one of your 'thought experiments' again?
>Read it again and reconsider your logic.
My logic is your logic. And yes, I know of somebody who even before
1702 was undertaking systematic excavations complete with
documentation and attempts at the dating of his finds from the
thickness and nature of the soil deposits on the site. That sounds
suspiciously like archaeology to me but I don' treally know for
certain as you have given me only a circular argument as a definition
of archaeology.
And then the archaeologist has to interpret his findings in the light
of the (possibly erroneous) dating given to him by the lab. Or do you
think he should take it as gospel?
>
>> The idea that these
>> aspects are not part of archaeology is fundamentally flawed.
>
>/You/ are fundamentally flawed
ad-hominem yet.
>
>>>>> What you are looking for is not a definition
>>>>> but a handbook.
>
>That is worth repeating
>What you are looking for is not a definition but a handbook.
How about trying to write the introduction?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:fc5g729rvijs9dlvl...@4ax.com
Yep. Posted by you and witten in response to my quote of somebody
else's words. See http://tinyurl.com/fmf7r
>
>And on an earlier occasion one was:
> "Note the "has tended". That time is long gone."
Again written by you and once again in response to me quoting the same
material as above but in a different thread. See
http://tinyurl.com/e52p8
But so what? You disagree with the author of the text from which I
quoted. Is that important?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
I'm afraid not Uwe. Their respective disciplines are often
unintelligible to each other.
>
>This is not true for all the branches of historic studies.
It's not true for engineering either. Each specialty attracts its own
particular style of mental process and the working of their respective
minds are often a complete mystery to the others. I see the same thing
happening in the specialties comprising archaeology.
>
>>
>> I see the same situation existing in the world of archaeology. The
>> recent (ongoing?) discussion with Doug Weller has identified the core
>> of the problem. Is archaeology about (1) recovering the past or is it
>> restricted to (2) using 'artifacts' to recover the past?
>
>Recovering the past is as good a description as historic studies. But there
>are great differences in methods and results between the different branches
>of science involved. Archaeology uses artefacts (in a wide sense) from
>excavations to recover the past.
>
>Archaeology as learning about the past in general and in toto (archaeo
>logos) was a thing of the 17.-19. century (at least over here) before they
>learned to read the ancient scripts and developed other technics too.
>
>>
>> My own personal view is that (2) is a subset of (1) and while (2) is
>> undoubtedly archaeology it is not the whole of archaeology.
>
>Wait, historic studies, or recovering the past (1), is one thing, and
>archaeology (2) is another. I agree.
>(2) is a subset of (1), I still agree, as are history, archaeobiology, etc.
>
>But why should archaeology not be the whole of archaeology, one branch of
>science contributing to historical studies? Why does it have to be (2) AND
>(1)?
>
>Why do you believe that archaeology should include history,
>archaeobiology, nuclear physics, archaeastronomy, ...? Just because they can
>be combined in historical studies, (1)?
There seems to share a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say.
Think of the theory of sets. In the broad ocean of knowledge there is
the set of all archaeologists. Within it, there is a subset of those
who work only with artifacts. Surrounding the archaeologists are the
sets of (let's say) historians, chemists, botanists, paleographers,
linguists, physicists etc. But there is no gap between the various
sets. They all overlap one another to various extents (even the set of
bank managers overlap the set of archaeologists). That means that it
is possible for an archaeologist to know something about history,
chemistry, botany, paleography, physics (and even bank managing) and
to take it into account in their thinking. They can even (shock -
horror) discuss these things as part of their archaeological work. But
that does not mean that the whole of each of these individual fields
has to lie within the field of archaeology.
>
>And if so, wouldn't it be wiser to use two different words to distinguish
>between the two different notions?
A problem is that as has already been made clear there seems to be a
general unwillingness to try and define what any of these notions
might be. For that reason there will never be general agreement. It's
all a great fuzzy cloud.
>
>> For
>> centuries man had no physical evidence other than artifacts as to the
>> past and that has come to shape the common view of what it is that
>> comprises archaeology.
>
>The collection of ancient objects goes back to the beginning of the Cro
>Magnon, archaeology has been used for 2.500 years. At this time the main
>evidence about the past came from oral traditions, but there were always
>older burial grounds, sacred places, that were believed to reach back in
>time.
>
>> I suppose the change started with Olof Rudbeck
>> who in the 17th century started using the thickness of soil layers as
>> a dating tool, and it has gone on from there. That is why I now prefer
>> a definition of archaeology that is not based on what archaeologists
>> presently do but what it is they are actually trying to do which is
>> undertake the "systematic _study_ of_ past_human_life_and_culture_ by
>> the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence". Anything
>> which supports this objective is part of archaeology.
>
>Current money would greatly support archaeology, but would it be part of
>archaeology?
>Or, the other way round, if everything supporting archaeology was part of
>archaeology, would there be anything left?
What would be left would be all those parts of 'everything' which do
not fall within the set of archaeology.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote: news:fc5g729rvijs9dlvl...@4ax.com
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
>>> [...]
>>> http://archaeology.about.com/od/pterms/g/postprocess.htm
>>> [...]"
>>> No two people will agree. Tolerance is required.
>> You keep posting this. Very Ingerish.
>> Go e.g. back to your thread "Can any two people agree .."
>> may 17 and read the responses.
>>
>> One was:
>> "This division is false and the desciptions are
>> incomparable different and therefore misleading"
>
> Yep. Posted by you and witten in response to my quote of somebody
> else's words. See http://tinyurl.com/fmf7r
>>
>> And on an earlier occasion one was:
>> "Note the "has tended". That time is long gone."
>
> Again written by you and once again in response to me quoting the same
> material as above but in a different thread. See
> http://tinyurl.com/e52p8
>
> But so what? You disagree with the author of the text from which I
> quoted. Is that important?
It is important to note that you keep quoting
that text despite the fact you've been told that
you can't rely on it.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> IE J wrote:
>>> "Dylan Sung" skrev
>>>> "IE J" wrote
>>>>> Since the naysayers still tries to change subject and definition
>>>>> according to their belief,
>>>> How ironic!
>>> I am glad that you finally realise how far from the truth you and
>>> the other naysayer are re. what's inside topic for archaeologist and
>>> other discussing archaeology sites, findings and sorroundings!. :-)
>>> :-)
>>> Inger E
>> You don't even understand what Dylan was at.
>> Here is the explanation:
>> You wrote "Since the naysayers still tries to change subject ..."
>> but at the same time you changed again the subjectline.
>> What's more, the initial subject of this thread is not the
>> definition of archaeology. Eric changed it to that.
>
> OOps,
>
> Sorry Peter, I just responded to you as though it was Inger I was
> responding to. It wasn't Inger, it was you.
???
I regret now that I said that I have no trouble understanding you.
--
p.a.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> >These specialisations are all from the world of engineering, they work with
> >comparable methods, and their results can be expressed in the same 'shop
> >language'.
>
> I'm afraid not Uwe. Their respective disciplines are often
> unintelligible to each other.
But they are all engineers. They should all be interested in all the
same things. Even if some demure, they should be presented with any old
engineering material whatsoever. Like gatherers' digging sticks.
Obviously important to all engineers, no?
<snip>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:tqjh72hdri85r4f1u...@4ax.com
Eric Stevens
wrote:
1. It is only you (I think) who said that I can't rely on it.
2. I don't rely on it.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:08:21 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
>> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >These specialisations are all from the world of engineering, they work with
>> >comparable methods, and their results can be expressed in the same 'shop
>> >language'.
>>
>> I'm afraid not Uwe. Their respective disciplines are often
>> unintelligible to each other.
>
>But they are all engineers. They should all be interested in all the
>same things.
Why should they be? That certainly isn't what happens in the real
world.
>Even if some demure, they should be presented with any old
>engineering material whatsoever. Like gatherers' digging sticks.
>Obviously important to all engineers, no?
Where do I start ...... :-)
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
I think I did. If not, I should have.
>
>2. I don't rely on it.
>
Oh? I thought you did.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
IE J
Well Eric,
I myself think that this 'word' tolerance to which I responded was adeqvate
for the situation where Tom and Peter managed to once again together with
Doug's message to which you answered, try to stop discussion not in their
liking. Thus I think it's within what's needs to be said, not once but many
times - tolerance include that person or persons may present out-of
paradigma and/or out of the 'usual' thoughts theories and facts. Had Doug
for example studied what was written more closely he would have known the
difference between those who studied the program he calls combined and those
who studied anthropology program with archaeology.
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Peter Alaca
>>> OOps,
>>>
>>> Sorry Peter, I just responded to you as though it was Inger I was
>>> responding to. It wasn't Inger, it was you.
>>
>> ???
>> I regret now that I said that I have no trouble understanding you.
>
> Maybe you have not yet seen the article in which I wrote:
>
> "Sorry Inger, this is an entirely separate thread from any of the
> ones
> I have started. My sole contribution to this thread was my reply to
> Doug in which I introduced the word 'tolerance'."
I read that, also written at 1:28.
I always read all new posts in a thread
before posting.
--
p.a.
Uwe Müller
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:08:21 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:0kcc72hpcnvjc09ha...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:18:15 +1200, Eric Stevens
> >> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:56:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
> >> ><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:44:29 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
> >> >><uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> >>>news:sea8721nd9q92slh1...@4ax.com...
> >> >>>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:50:44 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@556.nn>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >Eric Stevens wrote:
news:j9u6725mou3i7lmu1...@4ax.com
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:18:13 +0200, "Peter Alaca"
<P.A...@556.nn>
> >> >>>> >> wrote:
> >> >>>> >>
> >> >>>> >>
> snip >
> >> >Not all historic study is Archaeology.
I believed you all basically use mathematics and discuss a set of qualities,
that can be defined and described with mathematics.
Sure, there are lots of differences between lets say archaeologists working
with Neanderthal remains and those working in medieval cities, but they are
basically comparable. The differences to archaeolimnologists, physicists or
historians are on another magnitude.
> >
> >This is not true for all the branches of historic studies.
>
> It's not true for engineering either. Each specialty attracts its own
> particular style of mental process and the working of their respective
> minds are often a complete mystery to the others. I see the same thing
> happening in the specialties comprising archaeology.
If you are talking about the differences between near eastern or
scandinavian archaeology, ship-building archaeology or burial archaeology,
this is correct.
If you consider anthropology, geology or art history as subsets of
archaeology, it is not.
That is where the faulty thinking starts. I do not do C14 dating, pollen
counting, analyses of snail shells, animal or human bones, etc. as they are
outside my branch of science. I lean on others branches of science for those
infos. I may discuss the value of those insights, as they validate or
falsify ideas I have about my field of expertise, but they are not part of
archaeology.
Using your model, I would say, that those subsets, among them archaeology,
comprise a totallity called historic studies, which in itself is a subset of
cultural studies, or anthropology in the wider sense of the word.
>But
> that does not mean that the whole of each of these individual fields
> has to lie within the field of archaeology.
They do not at all lie within archaeology, they are different from
archaeology. Their results are added up with other historical oriented
studies, among them archaeology, to give us knowledge about historic people.
> >
> >And if so, wouldn't it be wiser to use two different words to distinguish
> >between the two different notions?
>
> A problem is that as has already been made clear there seems to be a
> general unwillingness to try and define what any of these notions
> might be. For that reason there will never be general agreement. It's
> all a great fuzzy cloud.
You've had my defintion. Quite frankly, I do not know any two archaeologists
doing the same kind of work, which would enable them to agree on a
definition that could also be used by a layman. But we all use the same
basic methods to analyse the same data, artefacts.
> snip >
> >>Anything
> >> which supports this objective is part of archaeology.
> >
> >Current money would greatly support archaeology, but would it be part of
> >archaeology?
> >Or, the other way round, if everything supporting archaeology was part of
> >archaeology, would there be anything left?
>
> What would be left would be all those parts of 'everything' which do
> not fall within the set of archaeology.
What would that be, what could that be? There may be things or notions that
have not been used to further archaeology, yet. But I'm pretty sure, there
is someone out there trying to figure out a way just now. Open pit mining,
space exploration, organized religion, name it - we've used it.
I'm not opposed to the idea that archaeology is the crown of science, the
one science 'to rule them all and in the darkness bind them'. But this is
not realistic, and, if you allow that personal comment, highly unpractical.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 17:52:19 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:08:21 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
> >> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >These specialisations are all from the world of engineering, they work with
> >> >comparable methods, and their results can be expressed in the same 'shop
> >> >language'.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid not Uwe. Their respective disciplines are often
> >> unintelligible to each other.
> >
> >But they are all engineers. They should all be interested in all the
> >same things.
>
> Why should they be? That certainly isn't what happens in the real
> world.
Would that be the real world in which anything at all should be of
interest to archaeologists, without the need to connect anything to
anything? That world?
> >Even if some demure, they should be presented with any old
> >engineering material whatsoever. Like gatherers' digging sticks.
> >Obviously important to all engineers, no?
>
> Where do I start ...... :-)
I don't understand the problem. Digging sticks are levers. Levers are
machines. Engineers work with machines. Ergo, use of digging sticks to
obtain daily sustenance is of interest to engineers.
Q.E. bloody D.
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
--- snip ----
>> >These specialisations are all from the world of engineering, they work
>with
>> >comparable methods, and their results can be expressed in the same 'shop
>> >language'.
>>
>> I'm afraid not Uwe. Their respective disciplines are often
>> unintelligible to each other.
>
>I believed you all basically use mathematics and discuss a set of qualities,
>that can be defined and described with mathematics.
They tend to share a common spoken language too. :-)
But seriously, apart from the word 'engineer', there is practically
nothing in common between - say - a manufacturing engineer, a chemical
engineer and a roading engineer. There is no possibility that one can
cross over to another field without almost a complete re-education.
Apart from the basics required for communication, their respective
trainings have little in common.
>Sure, there are lots of differences between lets say archaeologists working
>with Neanderthal remains and those working in medieval cities, but they are
>basically comparable. The differences to archaeolimnologists, physicists or
>historians are on another magnitude.
>
>> >
>> >This is not true for all the branches of historic studies.
>>
>> It's not true for engineering either. Each specialty attracts its own
>> particular style of mental process and the working of their respective
>> minds are often a complete mystery to the others. I see the same thing
>> happening in the specialties comprising archaeology.
>
>If you are talking about the differences between near eastern or
>scandinavian archaeology, ship-building archaeology or burial archaeology,
>this is correct.
Some people can remember facts but can't think conceptually - and vice
versa. Other people have exceptionally good visualisation, even to the
point of being able to visualise the operations of complex mechanisms
in three dimensions. Others are almost completely unable to visualise
any kind of moving mechanism.
My experience is that (for example) the mental processes of structural
engineers tends to be very different from that of roading engineers.
Chemical engineers are different again as are control system
engineers.
>
>If you consider anthropology, geology or art history as subsets of
>archaeology, it is not.
But I don't "consider anthropology, geology or art history as subsets
of archaeology". Apart from the fact that there are those who want to
make archaeology a subset of anthropology, they are all distinctive
fields in thier own right. My view is that they all overlap to various
extents and it is not possible to completely exclude any one from the
others.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I mentioned it, I quoted it, andI discussed it, but I gave my own
separate definition.
"My preferred definition of archaeology now is "Gaining knowledge of
humanity's past cultures". How we go about it doesn't matter,
anything goes."
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip>
> "My preferred definition of archaeology now is "Gaining knowledge of
> humanity's past cultures". How we go about it doesn't matter,
> anything goes."
This is bad. For just one thing, archaeology doesn't just study the
past, unless you define the past as yesterday.
And you have subsumed all of history into archaeology.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I suppose all archaeologists are know about digging sticks. But few
would be so interested as to relate the style and use of the digging
stick to soil properties. Not to mention local flora.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> "My preferred definition of archaeology now is "Gaining knowledge of
>> humanity's past cultures". How we go about it doesn't matter,
>> anything goes."
>
>This is bad. For just one thing, archaeology doesn't just study the
>past, unless you define the past as yesterday.
Early this morning. - before I finished lunch?
>
>And you have subsumed all of history into archaeology.
>
Blimey! So I did!
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
Who said anything about archaeologists? I am discussing the critical
importance of digging sticks to engineering.
Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 16:50:04 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> "My preferred definition of archaeology now is "Gaining knowledge of
> >> humanity's past cultures". How we go about it doesn't matter,
> >> anything goes."
> >
> >This is bad. For just one thing, archaeology doesn't just study the
> >past, unless you define the past as yesterday.
>
> Early this morning. - before I finished lunch?
Not that long ago.
> >
> >And you have subsumed all of history into archaeology.
> >
> Blimey! So I did!
Then you should rethink the whole thing. This definition is foolish.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I agree that it is novel and that the historians won't like being
taken over but, can you give me a better one?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
What? But this is an archaeology news group.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
Foolish, useless, etc. How can anyone think that they can give the name
of a discipline a meaning that none (well, I can't be absolute, but if I
add 'virtually' I should be right!) of its practitioners will agree with?
Peter Alaca
news:1148860204.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
It means that all the tourists visiting the
Rijksmuseum are archaeologists.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> [...]
> I am fully aware of which 4 persons who tried to tell my supplier
> that I was the abusive one - that personal attack by naysayers
> rendered in a confirmed mail that my provider saw who the real
> abusers were, and that I should talk to the Swedish Datainspection's
> layer for international affairs.
> [...]
Translation:
- Four people filed a complaint ("tried to tell") against you
for abuse.
- You told ("rendered") Telia that these four are the real abusers.
- Telia wrote back (confirmed) with the advise to get lost.
("talk to the SD layer")
--
p.a.