30th January 2012, 02:21 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:They maybe don't explicitly use the P-word, but I would suggest that all of the following are pretty mainstream and phenomenonological in nature:
The English Heritage document: Heritage Counts - A Sense of Place,
The PPS5 document references to planners to consider not just monuments or sites but the setting and public perception of local heritage,
Most historical re-enactment groups,
Most experiential archaeology projects,
Museums and heritage 'attractions such as the Yorvik Viking Centre where visitors are encouraged to 'see, hear and smell' the past,
Any archaeological reference to a 'ritual' landscape,
Most digital reconstructions or computer 'visualisations' based on heritage subjects,
etc etc etc
Just beacuse its 'mainstream' or written down does not make it true.
But yes I was querying if 'phenomenology in archaeology has been 'accepted as legitimate' by anyone except the loons'
However, I'd argue that anyone would thinks that the way phenomenology is used by archaeologists is a legitimate way of data retrieval is a loon.
But I could be wrong, I often am, but remain unconvinced.
The evidence against such wooly thinking mounts up everyday..........
Is it just another idea/theory/technique from another subject that archaeologists have mis-understood and misused?
Just like maths was misunderstood and misused by the processualists? I mean thiessen polygons to predict settlement patterns........or punctuated equilibrium applied to the three age system......please!