+- 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: Theoretical Archaeology (/showthread.php?tid=1834)
Theoretical Archaeology - Pete M - 24th February 2005
I 'did' some theoretical archaeology at college in the early 80s and didn't understand a word of it (apart from the easy book from Binford). I got the impression that you state what you think you will find before you start, then 'test' your ideas with excavation or survey, then evaluate your ideas against the hard facts, then accept the theoy or formulate another one.
I was wondering if anyone is following the story, if it is still debated, and what the current types of theory are. I have never given it a second thought for the last 15+ years, and think the wounds have healed enough to have another look at it all. Has it all been discredited as academic pub-talk (yet)?
One thing I remember is the tortuous language used - very 1970s American socio-speak, which hid the meaning for me. Are there any 'idiots guides' to the subject, which use plain English?
Thanks for any comments
Pete
Theoretical Archaeology - deepdigger - 25th February 2005
yes i quite agree! we all had to do the theory bit when we were undergrads. some lecturers did take some perverse delight in handing out essays with undecipherable titles. and asking you to explain somebodies theroetical stance!
the most approachable book i found was matthew johnsons archaeological theory. quite good and not too heavy, covers all the basics. bruce trigger is also good but heavier
deep:face-approve:
deep
Theoretical Archaeology - the invisible man - 25th February 2005
Plain English is strictly forbidden in theoretical archaeology, for a very good reason. If anyone understood what pure acedemics are actually saying, they would be out of a job.
There is an element of "the Emperor's new clothes" about it all - you must never ever admit that it's all tosh or that you don't understand it. The correct response is to frown deeply, nod slowly and begin "hmm, yes, some very valid arguments. Howver, I would tentatively postulate" - then talk as much drivel as possible. Beer helps.The whole point of it is to use as many, and as long, words as possible where one or two would suffice. Hyphenated composite words and multiple adjectives are particularly favoured, as is anything ending in "ism" or "ist".
Hodder's "Reading the Past" is another excellent exmple.
Theoretical Archaeology - Beardstroker - 27th February 2005
Well, to quote Dorothy Parker, Reading the Past is not a book that should be tossed aside lightly, but hurled aside with great force,
Into a Bonfire preferably.
Theoretical Archaeology - BAJR Host - 28th February 2005
So do you mean that....... working in a strategic partnership with local stakeholders to create an enviroment of involvement that increases community awareness in heritage consultation dealing with finite options, requiring hard targets with soft indicators.....
You think thats plain english?? sadly working in the govt. in Scotland.. that is actual plain english!!
[:0]
Theoretical Archaeology - Oxbeast - 28th February 2005
Read An introduction to Archaeological Theory', by Johnson.
Actually quite readable, lanks up well to theories and other humanist discipliones and social sciences. For god's sake avoind anything by Binford. His 2001 tome 'Constructing Frames of Reference...' about hunter gatherers seems like something strainght out of the late 19th century.
Oh, and Chris Gosden's 'Archaeology and Anthropology; a changing relationship' is good as well.
Put simply, there are good and bad theories. BUT, there are also good and bad writers. Some people could not explain their way out of a paper bag. You should not really need an extensive grounding in French post-Structuralism to understand it, and if you feel you do, it is just badly written.
Theoretical Archaeology - the invisible man - 28th February 2005
Thank goodness for that, I thought I was just dim.
As a conversational aside, Chris Gosden once followed me into a toilet, you know.
Perhaps I should explain. Recognising me from a dusty hole in Oxfordshire, he thought I would know what room he was supposed to be lecturing in and hit on the wheeze of following me. I did, but unaware of my tail, I set off through labyrinthine corridors to the gents (as one does after a two hour drive and before a two hour lecture). He was quite bemused to find himself in the loo.
Sorry, but I don't have naby claims to fame....
Theoretical Archaeology - troll - 28th February 2005
Afraid things really have`nt changed much.There`s nothing worse in my humble opinion than archaeologists pretending to be informed social scientists. Careers have and, are still made on the basis that "complex systems require a complex language"-simply another whim to ensure the veil of exclusivity! Sir, avoid shanks and tilley.Hodder is superb for propping up wobbly coffee tables and slinging at the cat. I`m of the opinion that cultural theory should be studied on condition, that the discipline adopts an equal appraisal of psychology. I`m interested in people-not systems that argue for a largely linear and apparently logical explanation of the Human phenomenon.
Theoretical Archaeology - troll - 1st March 2005
Pete- Have realised how arrogant that sounded! Here`s the references-make your own mind up sir!
Re-Constructing Archaeology:Theory and Practice (Shanks and Tilley)
Contemporary Archaeology in Theory (Preucel and Hodder) Eds
Cultural Theory:The Key Thinkers (Edgar and Sedgwick)
Theoretical Archaeology - Oxbeast - 1st March 2005
There is also the point that understanding theory really helps you understand archaeological writing, even if you don't agree with it. If you know someones implicit theoretical background, and more or less when they were writing, you can make better sense of why they made the choices that they did. Theory explains why Cunliffes' stuff at Danebury reads very differently from Hodder's at Catal Huyuk. So even if you hate theory, you need to know something about it because the texts are full of it. Or something like that anyway...