+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: my question (/showthread.php?tid=302)
my question - Searcher - 18th October 2006
Hi all,
<center></center>IS ARCHAEOLOGY ESSENTIAL IN THE MODERN WORLD
I just got this question in my HE certificate class and have come up with a few view pionts myself. I thought it would be fun to see what your PERSONAL OPINIONs were.
my question - stripeykelly - 19th October 2006
The short answer - YES!
I feel it is very much like asking if history is relevant to the modern world, and I am no doubt that anyone would argue that it is not. Our heritage and history is essential to our identities, and equally important in helping dispelling myths. (Although I admit that they have been used to create myths). If we do not understand or at least know a little about our past, then we cannot understand our present and therefore make provision for the future.
It is pretty well documented that when one country or culture violently invades another one of the first actions is to destroy the written and physical heritage, to deny the original population their identity and links to the landscape etc. For example the destruction of various native South American temples by conquistadors, the defacing of monuments in Thailand when the Burmese invaded in the 17th century, the wilful destruction of Buddhist temples in Nepal and Mongolia by the Chinese, or in their own countries, the destruction of religious places in Communist Russia, ditto in Communist China. Pol Pot, says it all. We even see it today on going in the Middle East, or even occasionally here, with the fire bombing of mosques to deny Muslims the right to practice their faith. The list truly is endless.
What would be equally awful, would be to deny and destroy our own heritage in the name of 'progress'. I do not deny for one second that we need progress (we are meant to be good at it), but how can we progress forward if we do not know our past?
Plus I need my job and I can't think of anything else I would rather do, except be an ice cream taster!
the future's bright; the future's trowel shaped
my question - Searcher - 19th October 2006
thanks for your view point kelly.
i did expect to get the YES answer from archaeologists themselves, but does anyone agree with the view that archaeology is perhaps non-essential, that there are overriding concerns in our modern world which are more essential? Do other areas of research make archaeology a redundent subject and with the wealth of information we have already do we really need to know and find more?
my question - drpeterwardle - 19th October 2006
The answer is yes. Absolutely vital. At present a key issue is understanding climate change its cause and effects and how humans will respond.
This depends on archaeology and history. It is unfortunate that in many respectst the collation of climate change data and archaeology is being done in a very naive manner juding by the lectuure I went to the other day.
Peter Wardle
my question - 1man1desk - 19th October 2006
Hard question to answer - but it needs some definition of terms first.
Essential for what? and for whom?
And what exactly do we mean by 'archaeology' in this context?
Do we mean the whole broad church of the archaeological profession and everything they do, or only certain narrower themes (such as the one mentioned by Dr Pete)? Do we mean the activity of archaeology (i.e. 'what archaeologists do') or do we mean the physical remains of the past (i.e. archaeological landscapes, sites, features and objects, or selected examples of them)?
Now I've got that off my chest, I'm off to pick some more nits...
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
my question - eggbasket - 19th October 2006
Given that all human endeavour is futile, and that there is no over-arching meaning to life, and no divine being will judge us for not caring about it (my view and not necessarily one shared by everyone here), I incline towards the view that archaeology, however you define it, is not essential, however you define what is essential. It is neither more nor less meaningful than any other activity that life-forms of many types engage in, which is to say, not at all. On the other hand, we may invest it with meaning if we choose to do so. That does not negate my first point, but does mean that it if we consider it to be essential, then it is essential (but only to us). As such there can be no all-encompassing universal answer to the question and each person must answer it for themselves and must answer for their response to themselves (and to no one else).
Have a nice day,
Eggbasket
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"A stitch in time saves precious bodily fluids."
my question - 1man1desk - 19th October 2006
And another thing.
If you are going to say that 'archaeology' (without qualifying the term) is essential, then you have to come up with a reason that covers the whole of the topic.
Dr Pete's answer is correct, so far as it goes. However, it is limited to the study of climate change - and what percentage of archaeological activity goes into that? What does, for instance, the typology of Anglo-Saxon sculpture, or the Defence of Britain Project, tell me about climate change? But, both of them are legitimate archaeological activities.
If you go down that route, you need to find a separate justification for why each different aspect of archaeological study is essential.
Now, I would say that the study of archaeology is essential because it is an integral part of our contemporary culture and civilisation to seek as deep an understanding of ourselves, including our own past, as we can achieve. If we started to identify parts of our culture as 'inessential' and got rid of them, we would devalue our culture and civilisation as a whole. And where would you stop? Is modern art essential? Is television essential?
This is fun. Burble burble burble
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
my question - Curator Kid - 19th October 2006
I thought the question was whether archaeology was essential Eggy - not existential!
my question - the invisible man - 19th October 2006
Archaeology is not essential to exist.
But then neither are music, literature, the visual arts, film and theatre, beer, cake and football. All however are essential to live. To want to know what is around the next corner is one of the things that makes us human, thus we must explore this world and others, including our own past, or put another way, ourselves. Knowledge is essential to the human spirit, even if only for its own sake.
There are indeed more pragmatic answers including those that have been put forward here. But I like the flowery one.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
my question - Curator Kid - 19th October 2006
Despite these perfectly reasonable answers Searcher, I personally suspect that if push came to shove, archaeologists would end up sharing Golgafrincham Ark "B" with the middle managers, hairdressers and the telephone sanitisers.
However, I suppose it is also worth remembering that Golgafrincham was decimated by a plague contracted from a dirty telephone. :face-huh: