Sensible Archaeology?

[vulpes]

well you do surprise me my Triassic chum, I'd never have tagged you as a uniformitarian

[BAJR]

THats the spirit... why complicate the basics why see the complex when the razor of Occam says... keep it simple... why build there.... cos its nice... sorted ... why throw stuff into a pit... cos thats why I dug it!

[vulpes]

now be sensible BAJR!

[Dirty Boy]

Aye,. Theory definately has its place, but I prefer looking at simple solutions first.

I did scoff at the van excavation when first seeing it, but after reading it thought it was very well done.

Can't read Tilley though. Got subjcted to Shanks and Tilley in Uni, gave up on page 14 when yet again I couldn't find a word they'd used in the dictionary. Was left with the urge to beat them with their own book. This was the view of the entire class. Complex theories are all good and dandy, but I think the more complex the theory, the more you have to take time to explain it simply. My lecturer didn't help as he used most of the same words, but spoken at high speed. Sadly it put all of us off most theory for a long gtime, and as this was the same lecturer as for the Neolthic course, any enthusiasm for anything before the Bronze Age has been sucked out of my soul.!

[Jack]

Dirty boy,
you'd be more entusiastic about the neolithic if you read the sensible papers. At Uni I had lots of fun writing essays attacking Post-processual papers.........its like shooting fish in a barrel!

[the invisible man]

Phew, am glad all I have to do occasionally is point out to diggers that they're talking s**t, it's some rubbish dumped in a ditch, not a 'ritual deposit' and the reason it's in the end of the ditch is cos there was a hedge in the way everywhere else.... why do people have to complicate things rather than admit that people haven't changed much over the years, they've always been lazy b******s, hence when it's raining the trash goes straight in the end of the ring-gully by the door (good evidence for lack of windows...) - suspect there was nothing much Phenomenological going on in the Neolithic (shouldn't that be a small 'n', by the way?), they couldn't even get 3 henges in a straight line....:face-stir:

How do you know (as opposed to assume)? Certainly your hypothesis is very plausible, but cannot be a certainty.

I understand that Neolithic is generally spelled with a capital, as is Bronze Age, Iron Age etc, depending somewhat on context.

[Unitof1]

I have this theory that it was ritual lazyness which led to every revolution that ever happened
I call it the lazy ritual theory

[Oxbeast]

Capitalise as a noun, lower case as an adjective.
While I totally agree with Dinosaur's post, if you appraoch the past with the attitude that people were much the same as we are, and logical and pragmatic and suchlike, how do you then explain actual ritual deposits? Other than saying, well, don't really know...
Why would you bury babies under certain parts of the floor of the roundhouse? Might that suggest that that part of the roundhouse had some kind of significance?
All the interpretation depends on theory, even if its just 'well, stands to reason, mate'.

[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.

[BAJR]

ecturers with pony tails,

oh come on... can't we agree on that }

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.

never