23rd January 2006, 01:42 PM
From Pauls last post: 'Although perhaps rather pretentiously expressed, the issues raised in the archaeology of the Blitz project are important. We have found that excavation and recording of 20th century sites (specifically, in fact, workers housing!) has been fascinating. We have been able to engage with members of the community who are otherwise not interested in 'proper' archaeology - some very interesting perspectives emerge when we deal with a blend of archaeology, memory and social history in this way'.
I completely agree. However, rather amusingly Current Archaeology 201 seems to be confused on this matter. In the 'Books' section there is a hidden bit of polemic...
'Not that Combat Archaeology is lacking in theory; on the contrary, there is a lot of it. But it is always the same 'post-modernist' nonsense currently so fashionable in parts of academia. 'This is a post-modern narrative', we are told 'recognising the relevance and validity of all'... Is it hopelessly old-fashioned of some of us to go on believing there is some sort of relationship between evidence and interpretation? That the hard, material, archaeological evidence ... is actually some sort of constraint on which interpretations can be considered 'relevant and valid'? Besides, if, regardless of the evidence, all interpretations are to be deemed 'relevant and valid', why, pray do we bother digging things up to find evidence in the first place?
Isnt this an attack on the multivocality (or, in other words, 'recognising the relevance and validity of all') that the Shoreditch project is promoting?
Im probably doing a dis service to both authors by quoting out of context, but there is a serious point here. People (perhaps English Heritage) will, (or perhaps already have) decided if conflict/20th century archaeology is worhwhile or a priority. If, on the one hand the Shoreditch project is claiming that 'little can be learnt from excavation that is not already known', and so have elevated the multi-interpretation/ viewpoint angle, whilst on the other, Current Archaeology are simultaneously suggesting that 'why bother digging things up'if regardless of evidence all interpretations are deemed 'relevant and valid', surely it becomes far harder to justify this sort of work (which is a shame because I thought the Shoreditch project looked really good).
Just a thought.
Gumbo
I completely agree. However, rather amusingly Current Archaeology 201 seems to be confused on this matter. In the 'Books' section there is a hidden bit of polemic...
'Not that Combat Archaeology is lacking in theory; on the contrary, there is a lot of it. But it is always the same 'post-modernist' nonsense currently so fashionable in parts of academia. 'This is a post-modern narrative', we are told 'recognising the relevance and validity of all'... Is it hopelessly old-fashioned of some of us to go on believing there is some sort of relationship between evidence and interpretation? That the hard, material, archaeological evidence ... is actually some sort of constraint on which interpretations can be considered 'relevant and valid'? Besides, if, regardless of the evidence, all interpretations are to be deemed 'relevant and valid', why, pray do we bother digging things up to find evidence in the first place?
Isnt this an attack on the multivocality (or, in other words, 'recognising the relevance and validity of all') that the Shoreditch project is promoting?
Im probably doing a dis service to both authors by quoting out of context, but there is a serious point here. People (perhaps English Heritage) will, (or perhaps already have) decided if conflict/20th century archaeology is worhwhile or a priority. If, on the one hand the Shoreditch project is claiming that 'little can be learnt from excavation that is not already known', and so have elevated the multi-interpretation/ viewpoint angle, whilst on the other, Current Archaeology are simultaneously suggesting that 'why bother digging things up'if regardless of evidence all interpretations are deemed 'relevant and valid', surely it becomes far harder to justify this sort of work (which is a shame because I thought the Shoreditch project looked really good).
Just a thought.
Gumbo