Is Archaeology Merely a Supplement to History?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAzn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Opinions
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
3 replies · 5K views
TheAzn
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
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."
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

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