I have decided to completely abandon the whole "pregnant archaeology adventures" shtick. Mainly due to the fact that this winter sucked horribly, and by the time field work came around again I was beyond wanting to challenge anyone who said I couldn't do field work during pregnancy. Cuz now, nope, just no. I don't want to. I don't even want to sit in the lab and use the hole punch to put holes in all the artifact bags. Laziness level = 1,000% and rising, and I am perfectly okay with that. I still go to the gym and workout twice a week, do prenatal yoga, clean the house, and walk the dogs. Take that "Don't Do Anything During Pregnancy" people! I am particularly fond of doing deadli...I mean squats, and the leg press at the gym (because really, imagine it. Imagine how far back I have to be in that machine to get my knees around my belly. Epic.).
This is straight out of a primitive "folk art" book. I wonder if it is even
authentic...whatever culture it belongs to.
|Shhh....Science is happening.|
|Legit science. Deciphering one piece of burned tree bits from others.|
Here's another one:
|Far less fun...|
Oh....well....boats and a hat. Hhmmm....well, damn. Cancel the Ancient Astronauts.
In all seriousness, the first time I cleaned and really looked at this lovely creamware red transfer-printed colonial water scene ceramic, I saw aliens and a freaking UFO. I walked around to everyone in the office and showed them. At least one person stared at it with this completed baffled look on his face with his mouth slightly agape. My argument was very compelling.
As you can see, there are too many elements (primarily involving human perception) that play into archaeological analysis. This is super duper important in that depending on how someone classifies artifacts, their analysis of the stratigraphy timeline, and ultimately their time frame for the site is affected. Archaeologists even determine the socio-economic status of, say, a household, based off the types of artifacts you find. Some were more elite than others. If one person sees a silver spoon, another person may see pewter. Pewter was a poor-man's "silver" in the 1800s, thus making it a lower socio-economic household. So whether you see silver or pewter makes a difference in the outcome of the analysis.
Archaeology may strive to use scientific methods in an effort to make excavations and studies as consistent as possible, and that is okay. In fact, I think it should be that way. That way you do find some sort of consistency through the digging process (i.e. using stratigraphy, measurements, etc) thereby making it possible for subsequent digs at one location to produce information that makes sense. My stratigraphy will match up with yours and so forth and so on.
|Curb bit, because my life experiences say so.|
So, there you have it. My reasoning why archaeology is not a science. I'll grant the profession that archaeology is a social science, and that we strive to utilize scientific methods for excavations, and even special analysis (such as faunal, archaeo-botanical, etc), but that's about it. Get past those aspects and you stop being a science. Licking stuff and declaring that it is blah-blah-blah is not science.