The idea that we can’t actually draw conclusions about the ways humanity behaved from physical evidence basically threw off my entire understanding of how everything works in research. It was pretty wild, and completely fascinating. Throughout the engaging and thoughtful lecture, I couldn’t help but wonder – if we can’t draw conclusions about why humanity behaved the way we do from archaeology, then why do we investigate it? What can it tell us, and why do we need to know it? As someone interested in film and books, I often find myself confronted with the same question. Who cares what this director made this character say? What, for lack of a better phrase, is the point?
I’m thinking that maybe ‘the point’ is more ambiguous than it seems. Maybe what’s important is that we understand why we do the things we do. What is it about the shell mounds that piques our interest? What moves us to wonder why directors create characters in certain ways? Surely the fact that we care indicates that there is some significance. Perhaps the very feeling of being interested, and the very act of investigating, is valuable in itself.
