The Commercial Paradigm

[Dave-Bonner]

I've lifted this thread from the Druids one 'cos it had barely anything to do with Druid's and ancestral claims.

Here's the last post:

"Brilliant! I'll give a pint to someone who can come up with a decent and evocative name for a our new paradigm!

Have you got a reference for that Bradley piece? I remember someone mentioning his project last summer but haven't got round to looking it up.

I think I agree mostly with that, although, I would like to see greater signs of movement the other way - universities to commercial - or at least greater discourse. I can see it happening in some places but its no-where near convincing at the moment and those who are engaging in it appear to be the exception to the rule. If its a one-way infiltration we're going to be having this discussion for a long time.

YET, I get the impression that most or many academic archaeologists have adopted a position critical of both processual and post-processual viewpoints (whilst accepting some aspects), and so surely have made a shift of sorts. Maybe that's just from where I'm sitting though. I remember someone suggesting that perhaps we should decapitate the upper echelons of the old guard (getting really revolutionary now)in academic institutions and perhaps we may encourage a greater degree of debate without having to worry about a bunch of dusty old timers covering their ar**s, and guarding their pensions.

I would hasten to add that that is not my opinion, but if it happened it would be interesting to see how it affects the mix ! One thing that really annoys me is that, whilst there is continual complaint that universities are producing a stream of graduates who are only worthy of trowel fodder status on site (not my words) - initially at least, I don't think the majority have a clue about what we're talking about hear, either. Post-processualism to some appears to be an excuse to get the dictionary out and then look confused when they can't find a definition.

And another point, maybe what we're seeing is not in fact subject to the concept of paradigms at all. Ever thought of that? Maybe Kuhn got it right as an observation, but scientific philosophers and others have managed to create a self-fulfilling and somewhat circular prophesy. Oh dear, I appear to be in the ivory elevator, rising rapidly!

p.s. i've heard it mentioned a few times by people in conversation. The only person I can remember coming out with it definitively is Tim Taylor, though. I like it as a descriptor, but perhaps it is more representative of a theoretical reactionism....or maybe I need a ciggy break and a double strength coffee!"

[gumbo]

Here you go Dave:

http://www.sal.org.uk/downloads/Bridging...ltures.doc

The whisper that was Rome and all that!

PS I think its the 'middle guard' that need the head chopping.

G x

PPS It was Tim Taylor who used the term commercial paradigm then? I dont like this term either as it is only descriptive. I prefer something like the 'rationalists' or 'the integrative archaeology' or 'their on our side but they've got far too much time on their hands in uni, and I dont give a f*** as I was so very wet and cold today paradigm'

[Dave-Bonner]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should just abolish university departments, or have embedded academics in commercial field teams - war-journalist style! Ahah!

Agreed about paradigms. My criticism is not of the concept but the way it is applied. If not applied critically enough (i.e. as a recognised, constructed set of parameters) then it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We are not physicists, we don't need a singular box to all jump into! There would be no space for integration then.

And again, I agree about the use of the term 'commercial paradigm', as I feel that in fact it isn't a a paradigm at all but reflective of a commercial situation. However, I think we are no-where near an 'integrative archaeology'. Perhaps closer than the Hodderites, but not there yet. A big obstruction may be overt commercialism, and perhaps the rift will only grow as a result. I think the funding situation in universities certainly contributes to this, then again it was British Academy grants which underpinned the post-processualist expansion.

[gumbo]

Good, good points. Will pause for thought and go home for tea!

G

[Tile man]

I quite like 'neo-processualist' myself, in as much as my work is very much (dare I say it) data-led and the tools I apply to the data tend to be very much processionalist (!) but a lot of the concepts that I have been exploring have been usefully informed by critically self-aware post-processialism, (although I do like proper defenitions...)

[gumbo]

LoL Does that make it the New New Archaeology then!

[Dave-Bonner]

I think that's quite an accurate assessment. The foundation of the current data-led archaeology and the scientific mindset was processualism, and that aspect hasn't (and never has) changed although perhaps we are more critically aware of the limitations of posivitism.

How about this as a suggestion. Post-processualism was never a fully fledged paradigm, but instead provided an anti-thesis to the extremism of the Binford scientific style. Was/is post-processualism limited to non-commercial 'applications'. I doubt it but what's the consensus?

[Dave-Bonner]

Oh dear, I'm going to stop talking now.

[kevin wooldridge]

What's in a name? I am leaning towards the idea that any new paradigm in archaeology should actually be given a non-sensical name (such as 'DaDa' for the anti-art movement of the 1915-25 period). And then I discover that two of the protagonists of the DaDa movement were Romanian and that 'Da Da' in Romanian equates to a rather tired 'Yeah Yeah' in English. Which is often the expression that crosses my lips when I hear of theories which don't hang to well with my personal experience of archaeological reality....Yeah, Yeah....

Anyway enough of that, what I wanted to say was that discussion of the widening gap between field and academic archaeology has been going on for as long as I have been involved in archaeology (over 25 years). I think the gap narrowed in the late 80's, but only through the deliberate efforts of some field archaeologists to find out/keep up with, what was happening in archaeological academic thought(and a few inspired uni lecturers who came from the field and retained some roots and friendships and continued a dialogue). But as both Dave Bonner and Gumbo have suggested such 'luxury' as time to read, think and build bridges pretty much went out the door when commercial archaeology came in in the early 90's. The irony is that whilst archaeologists oft trumpet the need to communicate the intricacy and fascination of our subject to the general public, we are quite unable to create an effective dialogue between the academic and commercial sectors of our singular discipline.

This in part may be due to the lack of opportunity to refresh the brain cells by taking a sabbatical from field endeavours and returning to academe. Pretty much a pipe dream these days, what with the continuing low pay-high fees paradox. Although I remember that Gumbo and I had an interesting day or two last year discussing the philosphy of the ownership of heritage down in the Metal Detecting Corner of BAJR whilst all kinds of threat and bluster was breaking out on other BAJR forums. That was a bit like a holiday...

There are important links between commercial and academic archys. Most archaeological 'field' publications are still after all refereed by academic archaeologists and that is a link I think should be maintained. But maybe a 'FieldTAG' conference is what is needed to re-gird the loins of both academic and commercial field archaeologists at a fairly minimal financial outlay. Perhaps it could be on the agenda for 'BAJR-07'.

(PS Having written this, I am reminded that I at present work for a university, albeit a foreign one, and that perhaps I should be doing a bit more myself to bridge gaps. Mea culpa. Then again has anyone noticed how 'clean' academic archaeologists smell.....all kind of flowery and spring-like!!....quite annoying after too long an exposure).

Is it too early to describe ourselves as Post-Blairite?

[Dave-Bonner]

Proto-post blairite! :-D