This is kind of hard to put into words. What I’m asking is, how would an archaeologist be able to tell if what they’ve just found is evidence of a massive cultural phenomenon or just a weird and singular thing?
Like, if someone dug up an ancient carving that they hadn’t seen before, would they assume that it had some sort of religious or cultural purpose immediately? Or would they just think “the guy that made this must’ve been really into carving”? Do they just always assume the latter until they see the carving pop up in different areas, or do they go towards the former more often without explicit backup evidence?
In: Other
Archaeologists and other cultural interpreters are influenced by the interests of their era. All will claim science and cultural research to back up their emphasis, or direction, which will be true.
But what meaning and field of sciences gets emphasis, is also subject to the interests of it’s day.
Often these that is influenced by who the principle investors or who offers the contract on projects, and where the private interests intersect on it.
Often one or two principle archaeologists who are charismatic, more personable and very good at raising business, may take projects in certain directions to align those interests with their practice.
Here in my country it is the law that archaeological reports must be made before mojor works, but they get commissioned from certain firms, and interpreted to be favourable as seen fit by the Government, to suit the private companies they have contracted for roads and other works here. Tragically this leads to Indigenous and important built heritage sites being disrespected and disregarded and sometimes destroyed as a result.
It is not a simple matter at all, and very interesting question!
Latest Answers