Considering folks have been digging things out of the earth and salvaging shipwrecks in shallow waters for ages, a sloppy form of archaeology has been practiced for a long, long time. The term used to describe this specialized field of study originated in the late 20th century, while archaeology as a discipline defined by that term has been around much longer. : a statement which is not only vague, but misleading, as well.
Is the archaeo- prefix appended to root word, -astronomy, meant to confer an archaeological blessing antecedent to any such study? Or, rather, is the term implicit of a form of early, "archaic" practice, as distinguished from the practice of "modern" astronomy? This relates to my second issue, the characterization of the genesis of archaeoastronomy, as it appears in the lead sentence under the WP article's heading History of archaeoastronomy:Īrchaeoastronomy is almost as old as archaeology itself. Specifically, archaeologists tend to dismiss any otherwise legitimate instance of potential archaeoastronomical inquiry absent an archaeological or accepted, localized anthropological component, such as a priori excavations or established cultural context. To me, at least, Ruggles' thumbnail definition seems more inclusive than what the lead paragraph of the WP article implies.
9.1 RFC requires stability of disputed sections.9 RFC: When does close collaboration by two academics rise to abuse?.8.2 Fringiness: Who decides? What constitutes fringe? Do shades exist?.8.1 Pre-Clovis Material does not discuss Archaeoastronomy.3 Archaeoastronomy's relation to other disciplines.2.3 Good Article? Actually Terrible Article.2.2 why GA status is undeserved, for now.1 Definition, Genesis and Intentionality of archaeoastronomy.
0 kommentar(er)
