9th October 2010, 03:35 PM
I thought we?d moved past this them-and us nonsense years ago? Sure, there was a time when archaeologists could rebut all criticism of their profession with the simple retort: ?the spade never lies.? At least that was the holding line, until Philip Greigson pointed out that even if ?the spade cannot lie, it owes this merit in part to the fact that it cannot speak.?
The Campaign for Sensible Archaeology?
Meh!
A testament to ignorance; a tribute to not knowing things; the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of hairy arses.
Everything we do, EVERYTHING we do, is theorised at some level. Archaeological theory sometimes feels impenetrable; but remember it is a specialism with its own specialist language, just like archaeological science has its own difficult language and concepts. Following CSA?s manifesto to its logical conclusion, we should also ask what?s all this crap about isotopes? I?ve never seen one have you?
A hackneyed view of academics is that they have total disdain for the value of commercial sector work (an opinion I have yet to encounter). This is the filed archaeologists equivalent of that stance (an opinion I have encountered far too often). Philosophical ideas need wrestling to the ground, and made to do some work. It?s only then that we can scrutinise their value, and communicate our findings with each other in a clear fashion.
That?s why it?s essential that field archaeologists at least attempt to meet this debate half way. Facebook groups are all a bit of fun, and The Campaign for Sensible Archaeology is no different. But come on now. Our relationship with theory is, well, complicated. And there?s nothing wrong with that.
The Campaign for Sensible Archaeology?
Meh!
A testament to ignorance; a tribute to not knowing things; the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of hairy arses.
Everything we do, EVERYTHING we do, is theorised at some level. Archaeological theory sometimes feels impenetrable; but remember it is a specialism with its own specialist language, just like archaeological science has its own difficult language and concepts. Following CSA?s manifesto to its logical conclusion, we should also ask what?s all this crap about isotopes? I?ve never seen one have you?
A hackneyed view of academics is that they have total disdain for the value of commercial sector work (an opinion I have yet to encounter). This is the filed archaeologists equivalent of that stance (an opinion I have encountered far too often). Philosophical ideas need wrestling to the ground, and made to do some work. It?s only then that we can scrutinise their value, and communicate our findings with each other in a clear fashion.
That?s why it?s essential that field archaeologists at least attempt to meet this debate half way. Facebook groups are all a bit of fun, and The Campaign for Sensible Archaeology is no different. But come on now. Our relationship with theory is, well, complicated. And there?s nothing wrong with that.