- This topic has 7 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
I know that we've had discussions on here in the past regarding archaeology and anthropology, and we've generally been skeptical about either or both of these fields. I am currently watching a long lecture series (at least 36 lectures) on archaeology in the classical world, and I must say it has a long and interesting history which has allowed it to develop with a set of high and trustworthy standards. In fact, although it is a separate field than history, it has provided historians with an immense amount of material which changes some of the most fundamental ways in which they look at history.
I agree fully about archaeology. Without that field, historians can't do what they do. About anthro though, I think historians can answer the cultural questions much more accurately. I see too many hypotheses in anthropology, and frankly some of them are far-fetched, where history is based more on fact. I'd much rather rely on what Aristotle and Thucydides say about excellence, honor, and war, than listen to the theories of anthropologists. That sounds like an interesting series, Phid!
I agree fully about archaeology. Without that field, historians can't do what they do. About anthro though, I think historians can answer the cultural questions much more accurately. I see too many hypotheses in anthropology, and frankly some of them are far-fetched, where history is based more on fact. I'd much rather rely on what Aristotle and Thucydides say about excellence, honor, and war, than listen to the theories of anthropologists. That sounds like an interesting series, Phid!
Thanks – the series is interesting. At first I thought it was going to be about the archaeology of Rome and Greece, but later on I found that it was on the history of archaeology in Rome and Greece (actually a significant difference). As for anthropology, I imagine that it has its legitimacy but that there are enough of those who have gone about it the wrong way, or who have asserted things without enough evidence, to blemish the entire field. In the same way one could say this was true for some early archaeologists (such as Heinrich Schliemann) and probably some historians who revise the past to suit their political agendas.
I'm a believer that geography (where we are, what it is like there, and what Mama nature deals us)influences our culture (antro / arch evidence; what we do with our geography) and culture influences our history (what we are like through time).
The Piltdown man forgery of 1912 is an amazing example of anthropology/archeology gone awry. Certain British antiquarians were looking to find human remains older than the Neaderthal, to prove that the first humans were British!A genuine great find like Raymond Dart's australopithecine in 1924, went gravely underappreciated. http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/ABBOTT/Abbot_defense/piltman_englishmystery.html
One of the reasons the forgery was so successful was that there were so many internal inconsistencies; scientists spent more time arguing over the interpretation of details than they did on validating the whole matter. For example, there were no systematic excavations at the site of Piltdown I, and the Piltdown II site was never found. The forger had also cleverly salted the gravel bed with faunal elements that indicated up to four separate horizons for geologists to fit into the existing Pliocene-Pleistocene chronology.As the years went on, other paleontological finds? especially the discovery of Peking man in the 1920s and 1930s by W. C. Pei and Teilhard de Chardin, the australopithecine facial skeleton discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924, and many other European remains showed that Piltdown man's combination of an advanced cranium and a primitive jaw was anomalous. Piltdown man became very much a side issue.In 1953, the Piltdown man controversy was revived at a London conference on human origins convened by the Weiner-Gren Foundation. Notably, the conference brought together two men: Kenneth Oakley, a geologist from the British Museum, who had been using various novel chemical analyses to test the age associations of fossil remains including Piltdown, and Joseph Weiner, a South-African-born anthropologist of Oxford University. The two shared a skepticism about the age of the Piltdown remains, the association of the jaw and the skull, and the haphazard pattern by which the fossils were collected. Oakley, for instance, had already shown that the remains were not very old at all.
In one of the lectures I was watching today, the professor brought up the issue of fakes. He told the story of one forger who made statues in Rome that looked like old works. He used urine from boys to put on or soak the statues in, which gave them the color he was looking for. He couldn't use his own urine because the testosterone in older male urine can be detected.
The Piltdown man forgery of 1912 is an amazing example of anthropology/archeology gone awry….
Sadly, hoaxing will be around as long as we are… one born every minute, and two to skin him.
He couldn't use his own urine because the testosterone in older male urine can be detected.
A real pisser.
I've got a question about archaeology, and rather than starting a new thread I'll ask it here.How do I put this…do historians ever act as quasi-archaeologists, or archaeologist tag-alongs? It seems to me that archaeologists are probably trained in general dig or excavation methods, but their historical knowledge is probably specific to a certain time period. So what happens if builders run across a site which contains artifacts from a time period outside a person's specialty? Do they have to fly in an archaeologist who is an expert in that time period, or do they just get any archaeologist to conduct the dig and bring in a local historian who specializes in that period (e.g. university professor) for consultation? An example in America might be if someone if a sewer line is being put in somewhere in small town Ohio, and they find artifacts that are unusually early (say from the 17th century). If none of the nearby archaeologists are versed in that time period, what do they do? I think Donnie may have mentioned something about this a while back, so he may know for sure.
…do historians ever act as quasi-archaeologists, or archaeologist tag-alongs? … have to fly in an archaeologist who is an expert in that time period, or do they just get any archaeologist to conduct the dig and bring in a local historian who specializes in that period (e.g. university professor) for consultation?
If they are worth a darn.
An example in America might be if someone if a sewer line is being put in somewhere in small town Ohio, and they find artifacts that are unusually early (say from the 17th century). If none of the nearby archaeologists are versed in that time period, what do they do?
As above… call in the right folks; or compromise the project, dooming it to critics from all sides.BTW, best anthropoligist I ever ran into was originally an undergrad in geography. Terrific teacher and widely regared exp. on the Aleutes.
Outer space archaeologists ? 17 Egyptian pyramids found !http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13522957
Get your hands dirty : where there's muck, there's memory ! (bis repetita)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13781202
