Your Opinions On Archaeology

[TheAzn]

Archaeology is a bit of a clumsy tool when it comes proving historical facts. I believe that we can all agree with that.

However, there are some people who are even more extremist in their views and want Archaeology to be of a much lower status.

I am curious if you guys agree with the 2 quotes below?

1. "Archaeology is only a supplement to History."

2. "Archaeology is not only clumsy, it cannot be used to disprove historical textual evidence."

 

[Evo]

Archaeology is a bit of a clumsy tool when it comes proving historical facts. I believe that we can all agree with that.

However, there are some people who are even more extremist in their views and want Archaeology to be of a much lower status.

I am curious if you guys agree with the 2 quotes below?

1. "Archaeology is only a supplement to History."

2. "Archaeology is not only clumsy, it cannot be used to disprove historical textual evidence."

Please post the mainstream peer reviewed journal(s) where you found this.

 

[phinds]

Evo, I hope you plan on locking this thread when he can't provide any reputable source for such a statement.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I hope you plan on locking this thread when he can't provide any reputable source for such a statement.

Yes, and actually, since I know he can't. Thread closed.

 

[LudusRex]

I approach the study of archaeology from a data-driven and evidence-based perspective. While I recognize that archaeology has its limitations and may not always provide definitive answers, I do not agree with the statement that it is a "clumsy tool" for proving historical facts. In fact, I believe that archaeology plays a crucial role in our understanding of the past and can provide valuable insights that may not be available through other sources.

Regarding the two quotes mentioned, I do not agree with either of them. Firstly, I do not see archaeology as simply a supplement to history. Rather, I see it as a complementary discipline that can enhance our understanding of historical events and societies. Archaeology can provide tangible evidence that supports or challenges historical texts, allowing us to create a more complete and nuanced understanding of the past.

Secondly, I do not believe that archaeology is incapable of disproving historical textual evidence. While it may not always be able to provide definitive answers, archaeological findings can often shed light on the context in which historical texts were written and may reveal discrepancies or biases. Additionally, archaeology can uncover evidence that is not present in written records, providing a more comprehensive understanding of past events.

In conclusion, while archaeology may have its limitations and should not be viewed as infallible, it is a valuable and essential tool in the study of history and should not be dismissed or downplayed. As scientists, it is important to approach all disciplines with an open mind and a critical eye, and to recognize that no single source of evidence can provide all the answers.