Re: Most Notable Archaeologist of the 20th Century




"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:44b8e01c$0$7181$dbd4d001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tedd Jacobs wrote: news:e9ajbb01153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Peter Alaca" wrote...
Tom McDonald wrote:
Peter Alaca wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:
Peter Alaca wrote:
Tedd Jacobs wrote
"Peter Alaca" wrote...
jmckelvryerson.ca wrote:
John Eric Voltin wrote:

Here's a question actually related to archaeology:
Who is the most notable archaeologist of the 20th century?

J.D.S. Pendlebury

Most notable? I never heard of the guy.
And I find it a stupid question.
Archaeology is not about archaeologists.

i seem to have missed the ' ;-) ' after that statement peter,
although i'm sure you ment to include one. :-)

Don't be so sure about that. I mean it.
Don't ask why.

Why?

Because I'm not sure I can explain :-)

Why not?

(shit!)

Because my active English is not good enough
to give an answer that satisfies me.

But I try to make some points. Until now Pendlebury,
Stewart, Binford, Carter and Bingham are named.
I didn't know who Pendlebury was and I still don't
know who Julian Stewart is. For me only Binford is
notable, because of his contributions to the theory of
archaeology.
The fact that an archaeologist made an important
(read 'spectacular') discovery, doesn't make the
archaeologist important, or even notable. And
spectacular discoveries are not necessarily important
for archaeology.

does that equate to "archaeology is not about archaeologists"?

More or less.
Of course archaeologists are neccesary for
archaeology, but they are not the point of
archaeology. Therefore an archaeologist is
not notable for his discoveries, but for his
(or her) contribution to archaeology.
I think that some of the suggestions done
here are confusing those two aspects.
The discoveries of Carter, Bingam and
Pendlebury were important for our knowledge,
but in my opinion that makes them not more
special than e.g. Binford and certainly not more
important for archaeology.
I understand from your earlier reply to John Voltin
that you know what I mean.

Does anyone of you know what lasting contributions
the late A.E.van Giffen made to archaeology?

yes.

I guess you never heard of him.

wrong.

Great. But unlike most here, you are an archaeologist
and therefore, (despite being an American, if I may say
so), you can be expected to know.

so what were his lasting contributions, in your opinion? (i consider
this a fair question to you, since you say you dont know who steward
is and feel the original question is not relevant to archaeology).

Van Giffen introduced biology to archaeology
and developed the quadrant method of excavation.
In my opinion that are major contributions to
archaeology, but I don't think that he deserves
the qualification "most notable archaeologist of the
20th century". In fact I don't think any archaeologist
deserves such a qualification, because it is subjective
and does unjust to others.

That last sentence goes a long way.

But let's try out some others.
Paul Reinecke put up the basic chronology for the Bronze age, from artefact
combinations from closed finds, which is still beíng used (method and
results) all over the place, from 1915.
Albert Kiekebusch discovered the post hole, he started off the
interpretation of soil colourations, 1904 AFAIR.

Does that make them basic knowledge for archaeologists?

have fun

Uwe Mueller


.