5th May 2010, 01:41 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:...........This is more than just semantics - there are practical implications for how one orientates oneself to the task at hand- it is a reminder that archaeology is created through thought, and that different thinking can create different archaeology.
This all hinges on a definition of archaeology. If it is the remains of passed activity e.g. plough furrow remnants, truncated post-hole etc, then this has been created by peoples activity in the past. If however your meaning the meaning behind the remains, i.e. what the remains meant to the people or what they were thinking, then your going to be a very frustrated archaeologist, unless you build a time machine.
This is why we should use evidence to back up theories, this evidence then iterrogated through publication. When new evidence arises, the evidence should be re-interrogated. Simples.
I do take your point, however, on peoples 'interpretations'. ......and this piece of pottery could have come from a villa that looked like this!