Unsettled Narrative

Historiography of Archaeological Interpretation

Abstract

Archaeology as a subject is considered as an activity to perform with past; wherein past is being used as a subject of enquiry. Hence, we can say that there is a negotiation which archaeologists perform between the past and their construction of the past. So, in principle, archaeology is entrenched in past, but it is not the past itself. Archaeologists attempts to explain it with phrases of interpretation. In which there is a clear distinction between the actual past which can be determined and measured within the frame or methods of interpretation. The second can be called theory, what archaeologists suggest for their narration, and the third is used as evidence to formulate the interpretation. Here the aspiration is to produce a viable account of the past that archaeologists are fanatically working to get it right and to provide a kind of transcription of the past as it was. There are always arguments among the archaeologists about how far these historical accounts or analysis are feasibly accurate relating to the fact of the past. The discussions are centered primarily on the nature of interpretation, categorization of sources, and how these sources have been projected. Therefore, the dialogue begins at the very first moment, to measure the truthfulness of these analyses. How far are they correct and meet with the requirements of the historical reconstruction archaeological evidences? Through this paper I would like to discuss this methodological explanation of interpreting archaeological/historical facts, how the construction of past depends on its theoretical frame of analysis corroborating facts and interpretation. The main objective of this paper will be to throw lights on the key concepts of methodological explanation of archaeological interpretation.