3 ms·

I think you’re reading journalists, not the actual archeologists. They saw evidence and suggested a hypothesis, not a conclusion. I personally have never read

by salmo 4y ago

I think you’re reading journalists, not the actual archeologists. They saw evidence and suggested a hypothesis, not a conclusion. I personally have never read an archeologist state a conclusion they didn’t directly observe. Sometimes they’ll note loose threads for further study. Scientific literature has gotten terrible about drawing conclusions from too few points and over reliance on flawed statistical analysis. But archeology doesn’t even pretend from what I’ve seen in the past few years.

groffee 4y ago
> I personally have never read an archeologist state a conclusion they didn’t directly observe. Ritual. It's literally a running joke, and it's every. single. paper. https://animalarchaeology.com/2018/10/09/what-is-old-is-new-again-a-primer-on-ritual-in-archaeology/ https://animalarchaeology.com/2018/10/09/what-is-old-is-new-...
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Wengrow/Graeber speak to this at length in their recent book Dawn of Everything, from perspective of anthro/archaeology
sandworm101 4y ago
How exactly is an archeologist ever to directly observe anything? Short of tardis tech, all they can ever do is pull logical conclusions form evidence. A worksite quickly burned and abandoned? During a time of strife with Roman armies? Valuable objects left untouched. It wasn't aliens or a dragon attack.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Archaeologists directly observe artifacts. For example, there's a class of artifact that have been called "storage jars" but there wasn't any evidence of what was "stored" in them. Some hypothesized that they were used as chamber pots, but they're too large to sit on. Recently, an archaeologist directly observed the eggs of a human fecal parasite inside of such a "storage jar," evidence in favor of the chamber pot hypothesis. They further hypothesize that these "storage jars" were housed in a wooden frame so that people could sit & do their business -- an ancient port-a-potty -- with little expectation that such a wooden structure would have survived the millenia. And, note the title "ceramic pot was probably a portable toilet." https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/this-ancient-roman-ceramic-pot-was-probably-a-portable-toilet-study-finds/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/this-ancient-roman-c... The criminal justice system works in the same way. Detectives look for evidence that a person was at the scene of a murder, and evidence linking the person to the murder weapon, and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even though no other living person directly observed the murder.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Yes but the "direct observations only" crowd, which includes various conspiracy theories, would have them only report on evidence without drawing any other statements. Some historians would have archeologists do only dig reports, leaving everything else to historians. Conspiracy nuts would have police only create evidence reports, leaving everything else to lay juries.

by salmo 4y ago

groffee 4y ago

> I personally have never read an archeologist state a conclusion they didn’t directly observe. Ritual. It's literally a running joke, and it's every. single. paper. https://animalarchaeology.com/2018/10/09/what-is-old-is-new-again-a-primer-on-ritual-in-archaeology/ https://animalarchaeology.com/2018/10/09/what-is-old-is-new-...

wahnfrieden 4y ago
Wengrow/Graeber speak to this at length in their recent book Dawn of Everything, from perspective of anthro/archaeology

sandworm101 4y ago

How exactly is an archeologist ever to directly observe anything? Short of tardis tech, all they can ever do is pull logical conclusions form evidence. A worksite quickly burned and abandoned? During a time of strife with Roman armies? Valuable objects left untouched. It wasn't aliens or a dragon attack.

klyrs 4y ago
Archaeologists directly observe artifacts. For example, there's a class of artifact that have been called "storage jars" but there wasn't any evidence of what was "stored" in them. Some hypothesized that they were used as chamber pots, but they're too large to sit on. Recently, an archaeologist directly observed the eggs of a human fecal parasite inside of such a "storage jar," evidence in favor of the chamber pot hypothesis. They further hypothesize that these "storage jars" were housed in a wooden frame so that people could sit & do their business -- an ancient port-a-potty -- with little expectation that such a wooden structure would have survived the millenia. And, note the title "ceramic pot was probably a portable toilet." https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/this-ancient-roman-ceramic-pot-was-probably-a-portable-toilet-study-finds/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/this-ancient-roman-c... The criminal justice system works in the same way. Detectives look for evidence that a person was at the scene of a murder, and evidence linking the person to the murder weapon, and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even though no other living person directly observed the murder.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Yes but the "direct observations only" crowd, which includes various conspiracy theories, would have them only report on evidence without drawing any other statements. Some historians would have archeologists do only dig reports, leaving everything else to historians. Conspiracy nuts would have police only create evidence reports, leaving everything else to lay juries.