Re: Can any two people agree on a definition of archaeology?

Eric Stevens wrote: news:n8sh62l6llbppu0bnuu36gnjp2d09m8k3o@xxxxxxx

On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:32:46 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote: news:jtff62d8iuoutfg540s4evrnj377cnmno6@xxxxxxx

There present discussions on whether something is or isn't on topic
for this news group share the common weakness that nobody has
bothered to define 'archaeology'. Everyone seems to have their own
idea of what it is, or more often what it isn't, but as far as I
can see nobody has defined the term sufficiently precisely to allow
firm exclusion policies to be either developed or justified.

So, come on all you people with strong opinions, please let us have
your definition of the meaning of archaeology. Bear in mind you
don't have to do this from a cold start. there are already
definitions of archaeology in existence.

How about your own definition for a start?

You should read for context. In my articles on this subject, I have
repeatedly used text quoted directly from one of the standard
definitions of archaeology: " The systematic study of past human life
and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material
evidence". You will find this definition with perhaps minor variation
scattered all over the web.

So why then didn't you start this thread with that definition
and with your own view or interpretation, instead of declaring
that there is disagreement (meaning you disagree) and asking
everybody but yourself for a definition.

--
p.a.






.

Relevant Pages
Loading