except without angry indians and bullwhips
2007-03-11 16:48:46 · 9 answers · asked by locusfire 5 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Look, I love Indiana Jones. He's my dream man, from hat to whip. But he has got to be the world's worst "archaeologist." He's a bit more of an irresponsible treasure seeker.
Most archaeology is conducted in dirty dusty conditions, with grids set apart by twine and scrubbing away with a toothbrush. It's not very glamorous, is it? Archaeologists will do whatever they can to preserve tiny shards of glass, bones, soil that indicates the presence of a fire...whereas Indy just hops around knocking enormous statues into each other to break apart a tomb and generally smashing things to pieces. (Bad archaeologist!) Nary a toothbrush in sight.
Anthropology is the study of contemporary human socities - archaeology is the study of past ones.
2007-03-11 19:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by Koko Nut 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh no! What a misconception! Archaeology is a sub-discipline of Anthropology, not a "wimpy version". In order to understand archaeological theories you must first study the bigger picture with Anthropology.
And by the way Indiana Jones is a poor example of an archaeologist. It is not such a glamorous field, it has nothing to do with "treasure hunting" since most of the time you don't find anything that the general public would be that interested in (ceramic shards tend to more interesting to an archaeologist than anyone else because they mean a lot more than meets the eye), and you will spend a lot more time in a lab cleaning stuff in a sink than you will hopping on planes to exciting destinations: 95% of archaeology is labwork, not fieldwork! It is a field you must love in order to pursue.
2007-03-12 11:02:20 · answer #2 · answered by Jennifer A 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Archaeology is one of the 4 sub-disciplines of Anthropology. The others are Physical Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, and Linguistic Anthropology.
Believe it or not, instead of "angry Indians and bullwhips" we often run into angry landowners and wary town-folk with shotguns while we are conducting our excavations.
2007-03-12 02:58:13 · answer #3 · answered by ezln_rebel 1 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, they are entirely different disciplines, although there can often be some overlap...do you really know what Archeology or Anthropology is?
2007-03-12 04:38:14 · answer #4 · answered by wendy g 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no its just more book minded.
some anthropologists can get their hands dirty just as well as an archaeologist.
but most tend t spend time researching rather then being in the thick of it.
Mind you some of my best friends are anthro students, but archeology will always rule.
2007-03-12 05:31:50 · answer #5 · answered by Stone K 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
archeology is more like an architect who studies arches.... and anthropolgy is someone who studies anthropos I think they come frome the vega star system. so totally different
2007-03-13 01:40:25 · answer #6 · answered by by the way which ones pink 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Archaeology is a discipline of Anthropology.
In fact, the discipline my own Anthro degree focused on. :)
2007-03-12 14:16:31 · answer #7 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on whether you prefer people, or things like old bones, artefacts and weapons, etc.
2007-03-13 00:16:36 · answer #8 · answered by CLICKHEREx 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
archeology is one of the four branches of anthropology. Duh.
2007-03-12 12:59:46 · answer #9 · answered by brian 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋