The definition of archaeology is using the information from analysis of artefacts, the excavation of sites and physical remains to study the human prehistory and history (Oxford Living Dictionaries n.d.) which is similar to the definition given by Renfrew and Bahn (2016, p.12) that archaeology is study of the past society and human from their material culture. The book was written by Renfrew and Bahn (2016, p.13) also suggests that archaeology has two perspectives which are history and science. To some extent, archaeology is different with history, because it rather than use the written contexts it uses the material from the past, which does not have a written statement (Renfrew and Bahn 2016, p.13). Therefore, the gathering of the evidence, …show more content…
The methods for analysis in archaeology, science would definitely be one of the ways for the collaboration to obtain the relationship. Sciences can bring a more certain conclusion and the answer to the past (Hunt et al 2001). However, sciences in archaeology are not only able to provide analytical data for the interpretation, but also providing information for the planning before the excavation. When looking back to the archaeology history, the implication of sciences in archaeology is independent in its application format, although sciences are definitely integrated with archaeology in the archaeology theory – processual archaeology. When looks at nowadays archaeology, sciences have been used in many different disciplines, such as in pre-excavation and post-excavation …show more content…
However, the entire process for the analysis in the archaeology from my perspective might not be a completely subjective processes. The reasons that I think sciences in archaeology might not be completely objective is there are large number of decisions that need to be made before or during the scientific assessment is used. Even the results are obtained, the researchers, who analysis it, would be able to have an influence on the interpretation. For example, for the analysis of the stable isotopes, the researchers have to decide which isotopes that they would use, and sometimes assumptions have to be made in order to carry out the experiment, such as in Montgomery et al. (2016, p.4), the report clearly stated that the method that mentioned in the analysis of strontium and oxygen isotopes for this report is based on the assumption that people were eating and drinking products which were sourced locally. This can show that the use of science is not completely objective, as some of the information for the analysis is no longer available, so the assumption according to some other sources would be made, which makes the process become more
The second question frequently asked regarding Schliemann’s legacy examines his motives and skill as an excavator: was Heinrich Schliemann a good archaeologist? This question has two sides. First, did Schliemann use the best techniques and technology available to him at time of his first excavation? Second, did he have the same values that other archaeologists have?
To identify the specific type, functions and time period of the artifacts, various archaeology books, reports, and journal were referred. The interpretation was then conducted by dividing the artifacts into different area on the map and investigating their relationships.
Archaeology is a continuously evolving field where there is a constant stream of new branches and excavation methods. Due to the influx of new technologies and innovations in recent decades, archaeologists have been able to excavate previously inaccessible areas. For example, new diving equipment and tools such as proton magnetometers, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and miniature submarines have allowed archaeologists to dive into the deep depths of the ocean. As a result, the branch of underwater archaeology was created to search for shipwrecks and other artifacts on the ocean floor. Underwater archaeology’s role has increased in recent years as it allows archaeologists to more accurately interpret the past by supplementing information gained through traditional land excavations.
Archeology, which is the study of human activity in the past, has many significant names that discovered important sites to the history of art. One of these names is Heinrich Schliemann. Heinrich Schliemann was born on 6th of January, 1822, and died on December 26th, 1890. Schliemann was a businessman who could speak 15 languages, and he was a world traveler. His father used to read for him Homer’s Iliad when he was eight years old, which made his biggest dream is to become archeological and find about the places that Homer talked about. Schliemann, as a businessman, made a fortune, which was enough for him to retire; then, in 1871, he started to follow his dream and worked on Troy. Heinrich Schliemann work is very important and added a significant value to the history of art. His discoveries in Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns made him a pioneer in archeology.
Stephen Shennan's concern with how non-state agrarian societies have been characterized by archaeological studies in the past is well founded. Characterizing (and categorizing) non-state societies as stepping-stones evolving into future states is an outdated approach to these studies. The approach he proposed would focus on our understanding the archaeological record as the remains of social practices, rather than generalized social institutions. He refers to Bourdieu's theory of practice, and stresses the need to ground social archaeology in the micro-scale of day-to-day activities in our analyses. The study of long-term change, patterns of inequality, domination and resistance can be investigated through statistical analysis of the distributions of outcomes.
Although not all of my observations were faulted, two of them greatly were. After much contemplation, I have concluded that though archeology is susceptible to human error, so is pretty much everything else. One can never truly escape human error; but one can learn to work with and around human error. Once someone masters working with and around human error, I think they become an expert in their field.
Evolution can be seen throughout all aspects of life, but for each aspect evolution does not occur in the same process. In his article entitled “Natural Selection, Scale, and Cultural Evolution,” Dunnell emphasizes and explains why evolution has made such a small impact on archaeology. Cultural evolution and biological evolution are not the same. Biological evolution uses theoretical propositions that explain the mechanisms of biological adaptation and evolution. The laws of cultural evolution “are not theoretical propositions but rather empirical generalizations” (Dunnell, 1996: 25). Cultural evolution does not explain the differences among the occurrences cultural phenomena. Dunnell’s main goal is to effectively formulate ways to integrate evolutionary characteristics and anthropological theory (Dunnell, 1996).
Discussions in the 1970’s and 1980’s within both sides of the debate indicate population change, behavior change and natural processes to be the large determining factors (Attenbrow, 2004). Many archaeologists accepted there was a continuing increase over time in the number of archaeological sites established and used, as well as in the number of artefacts accumulated in individual sites, particularly in the past 5000 years (eg. Johnson 1979:39; Bowdler1981; Morwood 1984:371, 1986, 1987; Ross 1984, 1985:87; Beaton 1985: 16-18; Fletcher-Jones 1985: 282, 286; Lourandos 1985a: 393-411, 1985b: 38; White and Habgood 1985; Hiscock 1986) (Attenbrow, 2004). Population change refers to the changes in number of people or size of the population, behavioural changes referring to changes to activities such as tool manufacturing, subsistence practices as well as the use of space within a site (Attenbrow, 2004). Whilst natural processes include geomorphological and biological process that may have affected the archaeological record (At...
Through out human history, we look back to the peaks of our civilization, and learn and adapt from it to build our future, and the two greatest civilizations in our human history; which were the Greeks and the Romans civilizations, that brought upon the worlds greatest minds and iconic figures who impacted our history till this day. Different eras bringing us different things but all similar to their main sequence of their civilizations. As Archeologist look back to study those times, they look at the different things these civilizations held such as the arts and how art historians have used it to understand the history and values of these cultures that produced it, and how these two Great Civilizations were so similar but so different at
SHA, and other archaeological societies, institutions, scholars and archaeologists find it hard to conduct or even to get involved in such shows that are produced for the entertaining of fans and also for gaining revenue. The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is working on clearing-house project that will help in building public awareness about archaeology and the way it is practiced, therefore the project is seeking input from professionals and the interested public, in order to share and contribute information and
Ostelogical analysis is a very important process in understand our past. There are so many things that bones could tell us; the range of knowledge is great, we can determine where the remains came from their approximate age, their sex, their diet and even their death. There are so many different kinds of analysis that can be done from using ancient DNA to analyzing Stable Isotopes. Analysis of Ancient DNA hold an important key to solving the mystery of history. Using ancient DNA connections of kinship and sex can be determined.
Forensics Anthropology is the study that goes beyond the human skeleton. A forensics anthropologist can find out. How a person lived, the food that person ate, and the overall make-up of a human. The use of forensics has grown in recent years, it is used to solve crimes and locate missing persons. Snow, (1982) Forensics anthropology is not a new science. The first case forensics anthropology was used on was the Jezebel case, dating back to the nineteenth century. This case involved a person, who was thrown from a window. Snow, (1982) The remains found in this case were the skull, feet, and the palm of the victim’s hands.
Whilst there have been major criticisms of the Systems Theory, it is still occasionally applied to modern day archaeology to describe the components of culture-systems.
Archaeologists are scattered across the gamut. Considering knowledge of human past is valuable to numerous academic disciplines. Varieties of archaeological application include: cultural resource management, heritage conservation, historic preservation,
These historians only like major events that transformed things. Yet, people cannot change history, history happens the way it does and it can’t change. However, in the Strayer book, it does say that the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras are important to periodize. “ Although written records are absent, scholars have learned a great deal about Paleolithic and Neolithic peoples through their material remains: stones and bones, fossilized seeds, rock paintings and engravings and much more.”(12) This means that even though the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras didn’t have written records, they did leave behind their materials that we can learn and get an idea what they did back then. The Paleolithic and Neolithic people didn’t get a chance to develop a form of writing, they did utilize their resources correctly and left us these amazing artifacts that we can reflect on and decipher. The periodization of the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras did cause controversy in world