For this paper, I will first explain my theoretical perspective then discuss my archaeologist and his work.
My Theoretical Perspective
For my theoretical perspective, I consider myself to be a subjective, post-processual inclined theorist. I am subjective in my belief that theory should not only use data but also interpretations to explain phenomena. I am post-processual inclined because I relate most to the ideas of post-processual theory. Post-processual theory centers around the idea of studying the internal changes within culture through social relations. In my opinion, to understand culture, archaeologists should understand the social aspects of culture that affected people’s daily lives.
I believe that I am close to the hermeneutic side
…show more content…
562). This means that for archaeologists, anyone could interpret an artifact as something and not be considered completely false. To the processual theorists, this would be proving post-processualism to be faulty. Yet, the fact that post-processualism concentrates on understanding social relations within research is too important to be cast aside for a more objective perspective. Despite the hindrance of having multiple interpretations for data, I still believe post-processual ideas can benefit historical archaeology. Post-processualism is also criticized for rejecting the scientific method and laws, but Shackel and Little point out that post-processualists recognize general theories and grounded data (Shackel and Little, 1992, pg. 6). Unlike objective processualism, post-processualism does not follow strict rules of the scientific method and general laws because of its subjectivity through interpretation of …show more content…
Civic engagement is how people in a community participate in activities that improve the conditions of the community and shapes its future (Adler and Goggin, 2005, pg. 236). For archaeology, the public can be able to interact with archaeologists and exhibits archaeologists’ provide to learn about their community’s history that can be applied to the present (Shackel, 2007, pg. 243). The perspective of the public community can serve as another form of interpretation of the past that could apply to their present and future conditions. Typically, the community gets involved with archaeological work through exhibits provided by excavators like the ones at the Archaeology in Annapolis program (Shackel, Mullins, and Warner, 1998, pg.
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.
Few Archaeologists have been said to have shaped modern Archaeology. Bruce Trigger was one of those Archaeologists. Before his death in 2006, he published a great number of works that influenced professionals and students alike on an international stage (Fagan 1). His open-minded yet fact-based approach to archaeology changed the way many archaeologists approach their work in the modern era.
THE LIFE CYCLE OF AN ARTIFACT What is an artifact? According to the dictionary, an artifact is “something made or given shape by man, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest” ("The Definition of Artifact"). In archaeology, the word “artifact” defines an object recovered by archaeological attempt, which might have a cultural attention.
Archaeologists are trying very hard to understand the ethnographers. They do this because they want to understand just what it is that they are digging up, and the best way to find out is to ask the people who use them. Of course they are not perfect, and some archaeologists dig competitively (almost like tomb raiders), but overall, we can learn a lot about ancient people from the work of these two groups of scientists working together with the past and the present.
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).
The Minoan archaeology is one which was surrounded by numerous controversies and this can be considered to be incomplete without the overall understanding of Sir Arthur Evans. The Minoan archaeology on its own has been present for several years however a true understanding of the culture and the culture was brought to life due to the efforts by Sir Arthur Evans. Heinrich Schliemann on the other hand was focused on the Mycenaean culture. Both these scholars were known to make a number of alterations to the artifacts, however for very different reasons and rationale. The main aim of this paper is to discuss their position in each culture and to discuss the possible rationale that these individuals had for making the alterations.
The ways in which we attempt to determine the history of early man say much more about who we are today, and who we will be tomorrow, and who we want to be today, and who we want to be tomorrow, than they do about who we were in the past. This statement comes from a person who knows little about science, and less about the specific scientific techniques used in archeological excavation and analysis. But it seems to me that much of the observations that are made in the study of early man are predicated as much on new theory as they are on old observation, and much of the old observation seems to be based on how humans act now, rather than in the past.
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
Bowman, John. Exploration in the World of the Ancients. New York: Facts on File, 2005.
Maspero, Gaston. Manual Of Egyptian Archaeology And Guide To The Study Of Antiquities In Egypt. 1895. Print.
I shall gather various types of archaeological publications dealing with deviant burial. It is important to include differing types of publications to see if it affects the way in which deviancy is dealt with. I will then determine if any common patterns are apparent within the study of deviant burial. If common patterns are found, each one will be explored individually. Searching for specific statements within the texts, I will attempt to determine how the patterns relate to the interpretation of deviant burial. As I have not previously dealt with deviant burials, I will also briefly convey my interpretations – as a simulated intended audience reader – of the way in which deviancy is conveyed through the material. This will give a distinctive perspective as to how the true intended audience of the publications may view the evidence as presented by the archaeologists. A discourse analysis is never complete as there are too many aspects to ever fully dissect a subject (Dijk 2001; Phillips and Hardy 2002). However, it is my intent to try to examine deviant burial as thoroughly as this thesis permits, as well as to bring a unique point of view to the
...e constraints with using language or sense perceptions as a single way of knowing. As more than one method is used to produce knowledge, inaccuracies or biases would be reduced. Ultimately, our own ‘cultural imprint’ further affects the way we interpret different types of art and how the language used by a historian alters our awareness of a historical event, as it is not possible to ask or investigate knowledge without having a preconceived notion of what you want to find.
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