Is Archaeology Merely a Supplement to History?

[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.