Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
chosen for a Facebook group set up to discuss some problems in todays archaeology that are not currently being addressed. The Facebook group consists of people from a number of archaeology backgrounds and addresses three main issues. These include the tendency for archaeological language and terms to be unnecessarily complex and impenetrable; a surprising disregard for basing interpretations on traditional forms of evidence; and an increasing range of projects that could be better examined using nonarchaeological methods.
With tongues firmly in cheeks, we define Sensible Archaeology as projects which have selected topics suitable to archaeological investigation, that at least attempt to attach discussion to solid archaeological evidence, and which detail the work in purposefully clear and comprehensible language. We would not necessarily proclaim projects that fail to meet these standards as being flawed, pointless or irrelevant; rather, we would choose to categorise them as being Beyond Sensible. This criticism is mainly a matter of stylistic choices, and should not be taken too literally, but there are some serious consequences to the proliferation of Beyond Sensible archaeology which we are attempting to highlight.
Chains of evidence
A second area of concern is in the current treatment of archaeological evidence in whatever form it may take. A worrying trend in modern archaeology is the disregard of factual evidence in favour of opinions and speculation. In many texts what begins as legitimate speculation and suggestion is subsequently transformed into fact simply through repetition. In other cases speculation presented in one source is transformed into fact when the source material is referenced by another author. Evidence is a broad term that we would use to include anything from dimensional and stratigraphic data, statistical analysis, specialist reports, reviews of how particular concepts have evolved in the literature over time, ethnographic parallels and so on. But the chain that links an interpretation back to the evidence is not one of heavy iron that has to be resentfully carried and slipped away from at the first opportunity. Archaeological interpretation is a slow and delicate process where all of the evidence should be meticulously and precisely assembled. When the chain wont stretch any further it is fine to simply say that, for now, the limit of the evidence has been reached. After all patience is a key virtue of the archaeologist.