Because it is only through the material remains discovered that some peoples and cultures are now known to have existed, we can only understand these societies by comparing what has been left behind with other cultures that we have more knowledge about. This may or may not have any real meaning to the original culture (Johnson, 2007). For this reason, some have argued against the use of cultural history as a means of understanding finds. “Historians who studied ancient Greece, Rome or the Bible could set out to locate physical traces on the ground of events and civilizations described in literature; this possibility was simply not available to other historians, natural scientists or collectors who tried to make sense of artifacts or graves surviving from times before the earliest surviving written records in other areas, for example, pre-Roman Britain” (Greene, 5). As Trigger (1989) explains, there is no such thing as objective knowledge and therefore no such thing as an absolute truth. We can interpret the findings in many different ways, all of which may contain some truth relating to the original society, but perhaps none of which offers any accuracy. Yet culture history can provide some accuracy as it is constrained by the artifacts found and the necessities common to all human life. Culture History.
Binford Lewis. (1983). In Pursuit of the Past. London: Thames and Hudson.
Faulkner Neil. (2009). “Childe fifty years on.” Current Archaeology.
Greene, Kevin. (2002). Archaeology: An Introduction. (Fourth Edition).
Johnson, Matthew. (2007). Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell.
Trigger B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge:CUP
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples