14th October 2010, 05:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 14th October 2010, 05:05 PM by Sparky.)
Kevin wrote: “The point I was trying to make was not that I disagreed with 'a damned good discussion' merely that the examples 'Sensible Archaeology' quote on their FB page (the Bristol van excavation, the work of Peter Reynolds, lecturers with pony tails, phenomenology, the books of Francis Pryor) all seem to me to have their merits and should not just be dismissed as 'Insensible'.....my suspicion (and 3 days on I am still not convinced otherwise) is that that the scattergun approach is essentially reactionary and therefore firmly belongs within the neo-con ideology that seems for some unbeknown reason to be courting popularity in the UK....”
Fair enough. As you say, all have their merits but I’m sure the argument is that some theories are taken beyond the original and intended heuristic purpose and are beyond sensible uses in archaeology. I can’t really promise a damned good debate on your accusations of neo-con behavior as I can’t see legitimacy in your reasons.
Its seems there’s a lot of myopic knee jerking occurring. Too many comfortable and familiar surroundings being threatened. As Stuart mentioned (either here on in his link) theories tend to be circular (hopefully in the future with some refinement).
Brahn. You used good examples of where phenomenology is usefully and legitimately applied.
Oxo (Hello!). I would never deny that in examples of funerary archaeology you are dealing with ritual behavior. In your example, the facts are there is a roundhouse of presumed date with a burial within a certain area which may be comparable with other similarly dated sites. Theories can apply but in the end these are only theories. Some should stay within the realms of fiction. Others are highly tenable and useful particularly when dealing with burials.
However, there is a tendency to overplay the ritual joker; not all roundhouses are south to southeast orientated, not all pottery sherds or flint tools / fragments are ritually deposited, souterrains aren’t necessarily sacred places, not all transit vans….
The real problem here concerns theoretical archaeology becoming a bit carried away with itself, with years of students believing theory as fact.
Foxy. You are one of the most chequered individuals on this forum. A bit of a cheek to suggest others only perceive in black or white.
Fair enough. As you say, all have their merits but I’m sure the argument is that some theories are taken beyond the original and intended heuristic purpose and are beyond sensible uses in archaeology. I can’t really promise a damned good debate on your accusations of neo-con behavior as I can’t see legitimacy in your reasons.
Its seems there’s a lot of myopic knee jerking occurring. Too many comfortable and familiar surroundings being threatened. As Stuart mentioned (either here on in his link) theories tend to be circular (hopefully in the future with some refinement).
Brahn. You used good examples of where phenomenology is usefully and legitimately applied.
Oxo (Hello!). I would never deny that in examples of funerary archaeology you are dealing with ritual behavior. In your example, the facts are there is a roundhouse of presumed date with a burial within a certain area which may be comparable with other similarly dated sites. Theories can apply but in the end these are only theories. Some should stay within the realms of fiction. Others are highly tenable and useful particularly when dealing with burials.
However, there is a tendency to overplay the ritual joker; not all roundhouses are south to southeast orientated, not all pottery sherds or flint tools / fragments are ritually deposited, souterrains aren’t necessarily sacred places, not all transit vans….
The real problem here concerns theoretical archaeology becoming a bit carried away with itself, with years of students believing theory as fact.
Foxy. You are one of the most chequered individuals on this forum. A bit of a cheek to suggest others only perceive in black or white.