Post-processual archaeology (burial) - Term Paper Example

To find objective information or to conduct research from an objective perspective when it comes to skeleton, it would only be achieved if there were absolutely no information of the skeletons or cadavers excavated. In addition, objectivity is not achieved following the presence or absence of a number of aspects that directly relate to demographics as archeologists first seek information prior to taking action in excavation. This way, they acquire historical facts and demographic information as can be seen in the case of the Nile Valley, where excavation is based on historical information (Larsen 120).

This way, the race and typing of demographics, as well as classification of skeletons found denies archeology a chance to be objective. This is due to the bias of already having particulate information on skeletons making sure that the morphological differences are identified and used prior to making new findings, which is hardly ever the case. This is especially in making new findings considering that there is already existent information regarding these skeletons based on their morphology and composition, which include factors of race and other classifications.

Objectivity is further influenced by the methods used in examination of skeletons, where the margin of error means a lot in collection of information, which is similar to the earlier mentioned case. As such, there are definite methods used in collection of data such as examination of bones, where based on initial findings, personal bias in a scientist can lead to the entire turning subjective. Evidence of this can be seen in the collection of data regarding osteoarthritis, which has been found in almost every place in the world, where the prevalence is deemed to be influenced by local circumstances.

Historical data referring to the prevalence of osteoarthritis points to men being more affected than women, which is a potentially subjective perspective due to lack of information from all areas, despite the mention of it being “nearly universal” (Wright and Yoder 46). Another factor to put into consideration is the influence of culture and scientific research, as well as science on culture, where the two seem to create a challenge for bio archeology. This is then related to the concept of objectivity looking into how those relate to one another, especially considering that culture and history are central to research interests of bio archeologists.

With this in mind, cultural perspectives serve as a central motivator towards the scientific methods and processes used in the formulation of hypotheses relating to archeological finds. As such, research being a scientific process, relies heavily on cultural; and social experiences in the formulation of hypotheses and researchers also look into their own knowledge prior to having archeological research done. This is enough ground to show that culture bears a bearing in scientific findings pertaining bio archeology, especially with the use of history and economic activities as has been seen with inclusion of agriculture in research to identify the circumstances surrounding archeological finds (Fleming 188).

With this in min