Questions concerning Archeology - Essay Example

Other (s) Archeology Mid-term Paper Q1. What is the difference between chronology and history? Archaeology as a discipline uses the concept of time to convey a diverse number of meanings. For example, the concept of time has widely been used both as a way of marking the passing of natural events and geological records (chronology) as well as a way of conceptualizing the past human rituals, practices and materiality (history). With regard to the differences between the two concepts of time, Chronology is generally considered to be a scientific body of knowledge that is concerned with the arrangement of events in their order of occurrence in time. According to Browman and Douglas (89), archaeological chronology seeks to establish when the events happened through a number of dating techniques such as carbon dating and seriation among others. On the other hand, history is primarily the study of human past. Historical archeology is concerned with the material remains of the human past through the examination of a wide range of preserved historical sites both on land and under water. In this regard, history as a study is both a scientific inquiry of the past events as well as the collection, discovery and organization of information about the human past. There are a number of ways that are commonly used by archeologists to categorize and describe the material past. For example, chronology is often used to understand the human past through a sequence of past events. Similarly, archeologists can use a timeline to mark the passing of natural events, geological records and other events in the past based on the time of their occurrence. Q2. The concept of landscape Throughout his article titled “the temporality of the landscape” Ingold uses two closely related perspectives of the term landscape. For example, on one hand, the term has been used describe how the past humans and animals dwelt in the world while on the other hand, the author also uses the term to describe archeological ideas related to the value attributed to nature and culture. The first perspective is largely a way through which archeologists can look at the past and as an integration of humans and their surroundings. Ingold further argues that human life is a complex process that involves the passage of time particularly in the formation of the landscapes in which people live. In this regard, time and landscape are significantly essential in the study of archeology and anthropology. The dwelling perspective is generally concerned with how the landscape is constituted as a record and testimony of the past lives and experiences of the previous generations who dwelt on it or have left some traces of their existence (Ingold, 36). This perspective particularly helps in the understanding of people’s past based on the evidence of their involvement in the world. For example, although the people no longer exist, the material remains can be used to study and interpret their lives and times. Q3. What is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? How are these two scientific assumptions challenged, and likewise, substantiated by archaeology? Inductive logic is the process of reasoning in which the grounds of disagreements are alleged to support the end but do not warrant it while deductive reasoning, developed by Thales, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers relates to a story on how Thales used his assistances to deduce that the next season’s olive crop would be a very large one. These two assumptions are often challenged because deductive one is dependent on its indications that is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result to questionable premises will yield an unsatisfying conclusion. On the other hand inductive reasoning challenged because it is only essential in using particular prepositions. Generally, according to many archaeologists, both of the two processes are used by scientists to formulate hypothesis that can be further explored into general conclusions. Q4. What do you understand by the concept of “uniformitarianism” and discuss other ways of conceptualising the past. The concept of Uniformitarianism generally refers to the supposition that same ordinary laws and developments that operate in the universe today had existed in the early and olden days. It shows that the present is the key to the past and it was a direct denunciation to the predominant philosophy of the time, catastrophism which held that only violent adversities could adjust the outward of the world. Uniformitarianism is a theory on the gentle, natural progressions that were experimental on the landscape. It suggested that ice could corrode rocks and sediments as well could accrue and form various new terrestrial land forms in the earth (David, 341) In archaeology, uniformitarianism is one of the major concepts that have always been widely used to conceptualize the past. For example, many archaeologists believe that the contemporary natural laws and other processes in the universe have always operated in the past as they are today. Consequently uniformitarianism is currently widely used as the key principle in a number of fields of sciences such as geology and archaeology. The other ways that have widely been used to conceptualize the past include catostrophism, transmutation and gradualism. Transmutation is a philosophic concept that argues that the present form of the universe as well as the earth’s inhabitants have generally developed through ages as opposed to through a single act. On the other hand, the concept of gradualism as used in archaeology is based on the theory that gradual changes occur over time. Generally the concepts of uniformitarianism, gradualism, and catostrophism among others have widely been used not only to conceptualize the past but also to help understand the important geological processes that have occurred in the universe and how such processes have influenced events. Time plays a significant role in all the three concepts and archaeologists have discovered a number of pieces of evidence to support some of these ideas and concepts. Q5. Locating or discovering archaeological sites: if you have an interest in this, how would you design a “critical” fieldwork methodology? Archaeological sites are normally characterized by both the presence of artifacts and features presenting evidence of existence of a settlement or trade that happened in a given area. Some of the common features included presence of households and fireplaces. Eco facts or the biological materials such as scales, bones or even feces also are crucial in locating these sites. The guidelines of landscape archaeology as well are critical in locating archaeological areas. When designing fieldwork methodology after identifying these sites methods used in recording mapping and locating these sites should be highly observed. Strategies for formulating survey plans, interpreting data and presenting work through work at both the theoretical and other field application levels are also essential. Tools as well are important in designing a principled and associated framework for the formulation and analytical technique. Q6. Antiquarians: the 18th/19th century approach to landscape in Europe. What value does their work have to the ways in which we approach landscape archaeology today? Antiquarian is an aficionado or scholar of remains of the ancient. The term is used for those who study past with particular reference to archaeological and historical sites, artefacts and ancient manuscripts or libraries. Today this term is usually used in a pejorative sense to refer to an exceptionally fine focus on realistic historical minutiae in explaining historical milieus or processes. The 18/19th century approach to landscape across Europe was particularly manifested in various landscape art paintings that sought to depict natural scenery such as trees, rivers, mountains, valleys and forests with the main subject being a wide view of the scenery. Towards the end of the 19th century, antiquarianism began to diverge into more specialized disciplines like archaeology and art history (Pauketat, 88). In the recent past or even today antiquarianism has been used to analyse purported artifacts bearing out-dated legends in stones and bronze which are usually well-kept-up in collection of various precious materials. It is as well valuable because it is one of the best known oldest ways of conveying the truth on the reality of catalogues to methodically describe and antique artifacts which were excavated. Consequently many of the practising antiquaries have now increasingly joined new roles as collaborators in the new fields. Finally it motivates the learning and recording the monuments of the past in its books which covers topics on the basis of the customs, religious rituals and political institutions. Q7. The prevalence of the notions of discovery and lost in archaeology The concepts of discovery and lost are particularly common in archaeological discourse because archaeology as a filed of study primarily involves the discovery of lost artifacts, events and other human actitivities that can be used to help understand the past and describe the history of discourse. In archaeology, the process of discovery usually begins with the surveying of an area to determine its likelihood of being a place of ancient activities. When the site has been discovered, archaeologist may begin excavation in an attempt to unearth all the lost material remains that may have been buried beneath the particularly archaeological site (Trigger, 56). The material remains are then analyzed and studied to shed clues on the ancient cultures and human activities. Through discovery of the “lost”, archaeology enables us to learn more about the people of the past ass well as the events that changed the way they lived and the reasons for such changes. Understanding ancient human cultures through archaeological discovery also enables archaeologists to determine the changes that have occurred over times and the potential seasons for those changes. On the other hand, the discovery of the lost material remains can also effectively be used to validate the present written records of ancient events. For example, when studying prehistoric times, the discovery of real objects such as stone tools, weapons used to hunt animals and other artefacts like pottery can be used to provide real understanding of people lived in the past and their interactions with the natural events. Q8. Mortuary archaeology: can we map social organisation onto mortuary practices? Archeological studies of medieval mortuary practices have been widely practices to provide important hindsight into the past way of lives. Mortuary archaeology data mostly collected from the Mesolithic occupation and burial site may include; sex, pathology, treatment of the body, age or even further funeral. Differences of mortality rates are normally examined in light of constraints placed on hunting and gathering. An important part of making sense of mortuary archaeology sites is having an understanding of funeral rituals and practices that occurred at the time in that area (Hoard, 718). By interpreting the meanings behind specific artifacts within the grave or determine the reason for the position in which one was buried can help understand the social organisation of a people especially if we have a grasp on what the emotions, the beliefs and the funeral acts were. According to many archeologists, there used to be a number of tripartite rituals surrounding specific transitional periods in culture referred to as rites of passage. Death being the only rite of passage that can leave traces of archaeology behind thus we can use it to surmise the ideology, behaviour and emotional aspects of past culture and social organisation. Erica hill in 1998 used mortuary archaeology and iconography from the Moche culture in the rite of passage development to connect two pieces of evidence. In ancient Roman imperial burials the duration for body viewership was dependent on the social; status of the individual although it is quite cumbersome to accurately presume the variation (Sellet, 103). In some countries as well a swept up remains of infants have been discovered and it has been found that the treatment of infants in the past vary significantly from their treatment in modern time. Finally, it is important to note that one’s social status can determine a lot about ones bones where in comparison to modern time wealthier individuals are leaner for their access to vegetables and fruits while the poor are corpulent due to junk food which also could have been the case in the past. Works Cited Browman, David L. and Douglas R. Givens. Stratigraphic excavation: The first "new archaeology." American Anthropologist 98.1(1996):80-95.Print. David, Nicholas C. Integrating ethnoarchaeology: A subtle realist perspective. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11(2002): 330-359. Print. Ingold, Tim. “The Temporality of the Landscape.” World Archaeology 25. 2 (1993): 24-174. Print. Pauketat, Timothy, R. “Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm”, Anthropological Theory 1(2001): 73-98. Print. Sellet, F. Greaves. Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility, Gainesville: University Press. 2006. Print. Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought: Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006. Print. Hoard, Robert J. “A Middle Archaic Burial From East Central Kansas”. American Antiquity 69.4 (2004):717-739. Read More