11th October 2010, 11:46 AM
As someone who has come to archaeology late in life and from a sideways route I have managed to bye pass archaeological theory almost completely.
I have tried hard to get my head round it but the obscure and obtuse language use to explain concepts is a real put off. And to be honest in my day to day work I do not needed it.
As I understand it the theories present models that enable us to look at the past but as each model is framed in the present it can be little more than an intellectual exercise. (There is nothing wrong with exercising the intellect!!). However people seem to get carried away with this intellectual challenge and forget to assess if it has actually progressed us any further in understanding the past.
The little I do understand seems to suggest to me that Archaeology borrows models from other disciplines and applies them in ways they were not originally designed to do. Sometimes 20 years after the original model has gone out of use in the discipline it derived from.
Is there any theoretical approach that is purely archaeological in that it is derived from archaeological practice and observation?
I have tried hard to get my head round it but the obscure and obtuse language use to explain concepts is a real put off. And to be honest in my day to day work I do not needed it.
As I understand it the theories present models that enable us to look at the past but as each model is framed in the present it can be little more than an intellectual exercise. (There is nothing wrong with exercising the intellect!!). However people seem to get carried away with this intellectual challenge and forget to assess if it has actually progressed us any further in understanding the past.
The little I do understand seems to suggest to me that Archaeology borrows models from other disciplines and applies them in ways they were not originally designed to do. Sometimes 20 years after the original model has gone out of use in the discipline it derived from.
Is there any theoretical approach that is purely archaeological in that it is derived from archaeological practice and observation?