Archaeology Useless?

What's even more ironic is the fricking idiots who are writing this and hence supporting this clap...they are on the list...fu*king dummies.

Lol, I didn't even check the list:

Yugo, I do not think arch. is useless, I posted that mainly to see what others had to say.  I believe that is becoming too common an attitude in a substantial slice of the public.   It's something that should concern us all.  Funds for digs and the science required after have never been easy to come by, this kind of thinking won't make it any easier.

Originally posted by Toltec Useless at what. Getting a you job, sure. But since when has a degree been about getting you a job?   Oh yes. the 1980's.   I blame Thatcher.     P.S. I was almost happy to read the report saying archaeology is useless, finally an American who knows what archaeology is...  Every report I ever read in an American publication never says "archaeologists" have discovered, they always say "scientists". Then you get the archaeologist riposting to the article in "science" magazine describing archaeology as a"social science". Look I know there is practically zero archaeology in America but for Christ sake can't someone learn archaeology is not science, not social science, it's a branch of anthropology.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 23-May-2012 at 22:36

Originally posted by Yugoslav Oh come on...every discipline is useful.

 

This is the golden time of Arch. in the americas. The bulk of the work is still waiting.

I stand on what I said.  You still don't know squat about archaeology in the US.

Originally posted by Toltec Originally posted by Nick1986 If archaeology's such a useless subject we'd be almost ignorant of past    Most people are.   The worst offenders at being ignorant of archaeology is historians, especially those who frequent history forums.   Most archaeologists I've spoken couldn't care less people know nothing about archaeology or that most people have an almost entirely wrong idea about prehistory (largely given to them by historians). They're happy to spread knowledge among themselves and keep it at that.

Unfortunately, that's true. Mick Aston is one of the few exceptions

Actually, I like archeology and it does open the door to some civilian careers. An intelligence analyst I worked with in Mexico had done the field work for his masters degree there. At that time the general histories treated the Maya as a lowland civilization that had never come in contact with the Mexica on the Altiplano plateus, something that a recent archeological discovery on a hilltop near Puebla had debunked. Likewise, the popular historic version of the Teotihuacan civilization held that they had not practiced human sacrifice, something he called into question by pointing out that its pyramids included blood runnels for draining the blood of sacrificial victims.

Korea likes to claim 5,000 years of history for itself, yet an archeological work by a Korean-American Ph.D. trims 3000 years off than, and notes that the pre-historic sites for manufacturing daggers proclaaimed as uniquely 'Korean' have been found all over North China.

So, it seems that archeologists can at least attempt to keep historians honest by providing some useful evidence raising doubts about long-accepted versions of history.

As for it being a branch of anthropology, I believe it is accepted as such. But given the AAA's activist political tint, and insistence on political correctness, over the past forty years, I can see why many archeologists might want to consider it separate.   

Anthropology is a Social Science.  As far as your characterization of Archaeology in the US, you really don't know squat.