12th August 2009, 07:54 PM
Nice indeed... good to see some nuanced discussion which doesn't degenerate into either Uof1 nonsense or 'us vs them' for once (whoever us and them might be in any particular context). People can hold different views but also share a lot of common ground; and by discussion, move forward.
The awl paper was good at the time (about 1993 or so if I recall), and demonstrated ways in which engagement with the past could move beyond the purely processual - of course similar approaches were also developed in landscape theory (cf. phenomenology). Mark Edmonds' book on the prehistory of the Peak District which came out about 10 years ago was in similar vein, if I recall - chapters of archaeological 'fact' interspersed with narrative fiction.
The problem with this sort of thing is that the gaps can be fudged.
My own specialist field is in historical archaeology. I have just completed a paper for a period journal which has avoided the usual breakdown into 'project background', 'historical background', 'archaeological results', 'discussion', 'conclusion', 'pages of pots', 'pages of metalwork', 'pages of enviro' etc. etc. and tried to blend it all into a seamless narrative. It has been bloody hard work.
However the conventional site archive is there (and grey lit will shortly be on Oasis) if someone else wants to deconstruct my narrative and create one of their own (and good luck to them!).
The awl paper was good at the time (about 1993 or so if I recall), and demonstrated ways in which engagement with the past could move beyond the purely processual - of course similar approaches were also developed in landscape theory (cf. phenomenology). Mark Edmonds' book on the prehistory of the Peak District which came out about 10 years ago was in similar vein, if I recall - chapters of archaeological 'fact' interspersed with narrative fiction.
The problem with this sort of thing is that the gaps can be fudged.
My own specialist field is in historical archaeology. I have just completed a paper for a period journal which has avoided the usual breakdown into 'project background', 'historical background', 'archaeological results', 'discussion', 'conclusion', 'pages of pots', 'pages of metalwork', 'pages of enviro' etc. etc. and tried to blend it all into a seamless narrative. It has been bloody hard work.
However the conventional site archive is there (and grey lit will shortly be on Oasis) if someone else wants to deconstruct my narrative and create one of their own (and good luck to them!).