12th October 2010, 12:11 AM
ok I have to be honest, I'm definitely not seeing your point. If we have the same edition then the quote I guess you're referring to is
"most of the contract archaeologists I know express just as strong an interest in method and theory as you do"
Is that the piece you meant?
I think you have misunderstood our intentions. We are not attempting to strike out against theory. What we have been talking about on the page comes down to three main things. One being abtuse language that actively hinders comprehension. The second is that some projects show a worrying trend to be completely divorced from anything as old fashioned as evidence, and not simply the stuff in holes now, evidence of any kind, including pre-existing perspectives that are being criticised unfairly. The third is that some projects, and admittedly a tiny tiny proportion, appear to be of little actual value but are justified under some weird relativistic netherworld.
And it's precisely because we have an interest for this stuff that we wish to discuss it.
And why do people here keep assuming I'm a contract archaeologist? And if I was what's wrong with that? I spent many years doing that sort of work, and it was fantastic. And now I do academic jobs, well so what. I'm still an archaeologist, same as I ever was.
But to illustrate a point about evidence, recently someone criticised my work saying,
" It wouldn't go amiss to realise it.... was written nearly thirty years ago on a different continent in a different academic climate and against a different theoretical and methodological background"
which seems to rather ignore some similar points I had made earlier about the same piece such as
"Do you see that was written 28 years ago? Well we've been through a whole other theoretical cycle since then..."
and
" Some of that is a rather specific to America"
Now if you don't mind I'll go back to picking through that article for choice quotes as it is very, very funny (the bits we were admiring!)
"most of the contract archaeologists I know express just as strong an interest in method and theory as you do"
Is that the piece you meant?
I think you have misunderstood our intentions. We are not attempting to strike out against theory. What we have been talking about on the page comes down to three main things. One being abtuse language that actively hinders comprehension. The second is that some projects show a worrying trend to be completely divorced from anything as old fashioned as evidence, and not simply the stuff in holes now, evidence of any kind, including pre-existing perspectives that are being criticised unfairly. The third is that some projects, and admittedly a tiny tiny proportion, appear to be of little actual value but are justified under some weird relativistic netherworld.
And it's precisely because we have an interest for this stuff that we wish to discuss it.
And why do people here keep assuming I'm a contract archaeologist? And if I was what's wrong with that? I spent many years doing that sort of work, and it was fantastic. And now I do academic jobs, well so what. I'm still an archaeologist, same as I ever was.
But to illustrate a point about evidence, recently someone criticised my work saying,
" It wouldn't go amiss to realise it.... was written nearly thirty years ago on a different continent in a different academic climate and against a different theoretical and methodological background"
which seems to rather ignore some similar points I had made earlier about the same piece such as
"Do you see that was written 28 years ago? Well we've been through a whole other theoretical cycle since then..."
and
" Some of that is a rather specific to America"
Now if you don't mind I'll go back to picking through that article for choice quotes as it is very, very funny (the bits we were admiring!)