Chapter V-4 The Relationship between Arts and Sciences in the Field of Archaeology: from Cooperation to a Truly Equal

Partnership
Sakuji Yoshimura Human Sciences, Waseda University, Japan and Institute of Egyptology, Waseda University, Japan, 1-6-1 Nishiwaseda, shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 169005, Japan maat@tky3.3web.ne.jp Keywords: arts, science, archaeology, methodology

1.

Introduction

I will start by explaining, as someone with an Arts background, my motives for participating in this symposium. The first reason is my close relationship with Professor Masayuki Uda, who organized this international conference. To go into somewhat more detail, the technology that Professor Uda has developed has made a tremendous difference to my own fieldwork in Egypt. The satisfaction that comes from gaining valuable new knowledge using his equipment is one of my chief motives for taking part in this symposium. Then there is the fact that for the past two decades, since the early 1980s, we have taken advantage of a wide range of advanced technologies on the ground in Egypt. The first piece of equipment we used was an electromagnetic distance measuring device for surveying, which enabled us to do away with plane-table surveying. We stored the data obtained on computer and printed it out back in the living quarters. After a few improvements, we were able not just to compile maps of structural remains but also record objects discovered in the list of finds all on computer. That dramatically enhanced the efficiency of our work as well as boosting objectivity. Next, we developed an automated diagramming system for visually recording dug-up artifacts. The goal of these energy-saving innovations was to reduce the amount of effort that archaeologists have to put into routine tasks and increase the amount of time they have for what they are really supposed to be doing: think. Consequently, we reached the next stage: harnessing scientific technology in the search for new sites, one of the archaeologists main tasks. That meant identifying the methods of geophysical prospecting most suited to Egyptian terrain. In 1985, a French team used a micro gravimeter on a pyramid. We chose to use an

291
M. Uda et al. (eds.), X-rays for Archaeology, 291293. 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

292

The Relationship between Arts and Sciences

electromagnetic wave meter instead, which allowed us to peek where we had never been able to peek before. We went on to use a wide range of other technologies as well, all made possible by human ingenuity.

2.

What is Archaeology?

Several years ago, the world of Japanese archaeology was shaken to its core when some major finds of Stone-Age implements were revealed to have been complete fabrications. As a result, the public has come to view the discipline with increasing skepticism. This unfortunate incident demonstrated that archaeology was not being conducted scientifically at all in Japan. Japanese archaeology has been reduced to a flashy stage show with the sole aim of discovering old objects. The only way to set it back on the right course is to rethink what archaeology is all about in the first place. At Archaeological investigations, how people lived in ancient times based on the evidence of the artifacts and ruins they have left behind. As a discipline, it takes a scientific approach to dating objects and identifying what they were used for. Whether something is old or new is immaterial. However, because the media lionizes any archaeologist who happens to dig up something very ancient, archaeologists find themselves engaging in unscientific deception before they even know it. Nothing testifies to that fact more than the way that Japanese universities count archaeology among the arts. That is an odd place for a discipline like archaeology, which is concerned with the scientific pursuit of truth, since art typically involves fabricating something out of nothing. Evidently, the pioneers of Japanese archaeology did not think that far. Archaeology is supposed to concern itself above all with techniques, so it probably really belongs in the engineering faculty which is exactly where the closely related discipline of architectural history is found. It needs to maintain that most important of scientific traits, objectivity. The same answer must always come up, no matter who is watching or who is doing the work. In Japanese archaeology today the excavator has exclusive knowledge and the exclusive right to consider the evidence. In some cases, no one but the excavator can even enter the site! That will simply not do. Which is why we want to put archaeology back among the sciences. This symposium is of great significance in achieving that goal.

3.

What Differences do those who Study the Arts Think there are between the Arts and Sciences?

One of the opinions expressed at this symposium is that those in the arts do not study hard enough. To someone in the sciences who has since youth played with numbers and spent much time and energy on uncovering scientific principles, it certainly may seem that we in the arts have an easy time of it. People in the arts are aware of the fact too. They know they should be putting their nose to the grindstone

Chapter V-4

293

more, and that knowledge gives them an inferiority complex, which in many cases makes them reluctant to work with their scientific colleagues. That is a tragedy for the progress of learning. In order to discover truth, is it really sufficient just to be good at math, or have an excellent grasp of physics, or be a whiz when it comes to chemical symbols and how chemicals react? I for one do not think so. People are all different, and it is only natural that they should be better at some things that at others. A really good archaeologist, they say, can stand on a site and estimate the size of something without even taking out a tape measure. There are even those whose gut instinct tells them what they are going to find before they even start digging. Such individuals are the exception, but the point is that different people have different roles, and that is fine. What gives scholarship its value, is that it allows to tap different ways of thinking, adopt different perspectives, and harness different methods all in pursuit of a single truth. The division into arts and sciences did not exist in antiquity. The fragmentation of scholarship into all kinds of specialized fields was perhaps unfortunate. We in the arts and sciences have come together here under a single roof, and this is an opportunity for us to work together in order to discover the truth of what it means to be human which is after all the ultimate goal of learning. Nevertheless, those in the sciences have an advantage in that they have their own methodology. Therefore, once they have established their objective, they can accomplish everything themselves without having to turn to others for help. They certainly do not need any assistance from the methodless arts. Nonetheless, many in the arts are able to offer a broader outlook on aims and objectives or have knowledge of historical background or context, despite their lack of methodology. When individuals from various disciplines are involved in interpreting whatever numbers come up, there is less room for error. It is time to stop asking which is better, arts or sciences, or which should help which. Lets all work together. That is the nature of my relationship with Professor Uda. Archaeology in the 21st Century

4.

The above considerations lead to the hope that archaeology in the 21stt century will span both the sciences and the arts. Since the latter half of the 20th century, the two disciplines have been striving to establish a cooperative relationship and have indeed to some extent succeeded in working together systematically. Cooperation inevitably involves one side leading the way and the other lending a hand in a subordinate role. It is understandable that people in the sciences were at first a bit miffed to find themselves treated as mere subcontractors assisting their arts colleagues research. However, in time they started to develop their own goals and objectives and attain them using their own methods, leaving no room for those in the arts. So now, discontent has spread among the latter. The only way to eliminate that discontent is for the arts and sciences to share common goals and develop common methods. That, surely, is the path that archaeology should take in the 21stt century.