+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Causewayed enclosures (/showthread.php?tid=4074)
Causewayed enclosures - Jack - 2nd September 2011
P Prentice Wrote:dont think i can agree with this statement simply because it will always occur as an imposition based on an insufficient dataset and different people will have drawn different meaning from any place or situation - even with some commonalities
Function has nothing to do with meaning.
For instance, in the modern world why do some houses in some countries have steeply pitched roofs whilst others in different countries have a lower pitch of roof?
Causewayed enclosures - P Prentice - 2nd September 2011
Jack Wrote:Function has nothing to do with meaning.
For instance, in the modern world why do some houses in some countries have steeply pitched roofs whilst others in different countries have a lower pitch of roof?
ah - the hedgehog and the fox all over again
Causewayed enclosures - GnomeKing - 2nd September 2011
function has everything and nothing to do with meaning, depending on the context of the problem, and the goal of the questioner.
as with many aspects of prehistoric archaeology, there is a risk of being too focused on the surviving remains (e.g. earth cut ditches + fills), which may themselves be a by-product, rather than central, to events or actions. ... what is missing from the picture?
Causewayed enclosures - P Prentice - 2nd September 2011
given that prehistoric archaeology at least is constrianed by a condition of vector probability or guesswork and that process and deposition enact a form of marchov chain, whereby discrete events may only be influenced by the immediately preceding event but not the entire chain (as in monument composition), the archaeological record must surely be a stochastic simile of the agencies in question. meaning is our quest and function is a mere bagatelle
Causewayed enclosures - GnomeKing - 2nd September 2011
if you say so. i say it all depends. mock if you will. you seem to think that i deny the validity and usefullness of materail remains. if you think you can do archaeology by looking only at the Flint, and not imaging the Hand that made it you are miserabley mistaken. Bleak indeed.....
For example, i refer you to several very sensible discussions about how ceramic vessels (which we find) might best be interpreted as special examples of a continuum extending to the woven vessels (that we do not find) more likely commonly in use.....i think the Tele-connections are possible - at least the value of an open mind is clear.
Causewayed enclosures - Sith - 5th September 2011
GnomeKing Wrote:at least the value of an open mind is clear.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Causewayed enclosures - P Prentice - 5th September 2011
i am not denying material remains at all. my admittedly facetious conceit was aimed at Jack but i will always see archaeology as interpretation rather than knowing
Causewayed enclosures - Jack - 5th September 2011
P Prentice Wrote:i am not denying material remains at all. my admittedly facetious conceit was aimed at Jack but i will always see archaeology as interpretation rather than knowing
Nah, some archaeologists are fond of interpretation without evidence (or ignoring the evidence). Knowing can be approached by amassing evidence.............but the answers often hide in the tiny details....which are often ignored as they don't fit with Mr T's current interpretation of...say.....Neolithic Britain...etc.
But in any science there is no real 'knowing' anyway......only questions.
The best you can hope for is a theory 'that it would be obtuse to think otherwise' (can't remember where the quote is from though)
But, its much easier to disprove a possible interpretation....leaving fewer possibles and stepping closer to knowing.
Causewayed enclosures - P Prentice - 5th September 2011
but if you approach any given dataset with a fallacious orthodoxy you will never get any closer to knowing
Causewayed enclosures - Jack - 6th September 2011
P Prentice Wrote:but if you approach any given dataset with a fallacious orthodoxy you will never get any closer to knowing
What a silly statement, or did I misunderstand you?
The only way to approach a dataset is by using the scientific principle. Otherwise any conclusion and hence interpretation is corrupt