Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur

From: Alaca (P.Alaca_at_is.fake)
Date: 03/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:35:40 +0100

I.E_Johansson wrote in: 2rL_d.132794$dP1.471091@newsc.telia.net,

-------------------------------
Only some highlights
No written comment
/ P.A./
-------------------------------

> And problem still remain - no Archaeologic data except
> dendrocronology today used will ever be able to give correct
> information of dating and interpretation if it wasn't for written
> sources.
>[...]
> Reason for this is the same as in our previous discussion
> where I and some other said that
> Absence of proof never can be used as proof of absence.
> I know that this is hard to understand for some here but think of it
> this way:

> If you haven't explored completely an area, excavated done geometric
> test analyses worked with airphotos etc - then you only knows about
> exact that part of the area you have research. You may have a guess,
> a hint, an idea, but you can't know for sure.

> [...] If you haven't gone thru all the documents yourself and
> there aren't a trustworty indexlist for what's in the archieve you
> can't say for sure that there isn't anything important among the
> documents you haven't studied.
>
> As I showed myself in my C-essay Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre
> tider, archaeology is as important to written sources as written
> sources are to archaeology - none can be said to be able in any way
> to stand on it's own feet.
> [...]
> Archaeology can't be trustworthy if there isn't a good documented
> history around it no matter the context where an artifact has been
> found.
> [...]
> To have good information about a period from which there exists
> written sources those sources must be read and known before it's
> possible to say that you know enough to form a thesis.
> [...]
> To have a good picture there
> needs to be solide documentation from an excavation - problem is that
> before there exists written sources all that is said is based only by
> comparing methods and dating methods,

> and up to Modern Age a lot of artifacts as well as written sources
> vanished into the past sometimes leaving only memories and ...
>[...]

> Inger E

Relevant Pages

  • Re: to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur
    ... >> findings, but also if the contradict your interpretation of that ... > say something existed, and the archaeology shows it didn't, so much ... Yes, and the written sources are seen as the real or only history, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Dendrochronology for medieval studies
    ... Archaeology is primarily a 'craft skill'. ... History is NOT a collection of facts, ... is an interpretation of written sources. ... Archaeology, in the same sense, is an interpretation ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Dendrochronology for medieval studies
    ... hence the classification pre-history, proto-history ... and history. ... For me archaeology is a way to write history, ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
Quantcast