Evolutionary v Interpretaive archaeology....

[P Prentice]

Hello, long time observer of Bajr, first time poster.....here goes!

I would have to agree with Kevin on this one adn those who believe theory doesn't have anything to do with commercial archaeology are severly mistaken.....theory is a part of all that we do, whether your particularly interested in it or not!

yea-way to go archie

[Oxbeast]

Hello archie and welcome...

I reckon you're right, but there is a certain current of opioion and you don;t need any theory, that is for wimps. You just dig lots of holes and say what you see. And some so-called academics haven;t spent a couple of decades exclusively digging holes, so what do they know about anything anyway?

:face-stir:

[P Prentice]

what's archaeology to do with digging holes oxbeast?

[Jack]

*Hand up*

I like theory.

Although, I'd say current theories have little place on site. They apply more to post-ex, analysis and interpretation.



But past theory shapes current on-site techniques.............and current on-site discoveries shapes future theory.

Its a 'positive feedback loop' for you electronic engineers out there.

And, anyone who thinks a natural system is driven by one or two variables (or factors) is foolish, everything is interconnected. So in terms of evolution (I'm guessing thats equivalent to environmental determinism) vs 'people decide'. Its both.

I always fall onto the side of environmental determinism (survival of the fittest) in any discussion. As the least fit loose and die.
However, the factors that decide what constitutes 'the fittest' vary from situation to situation, especially in the modern world (but in the ancient too). These factors can often be decided by people, e.g. ethnic cleansing, voting, joining a religion, rebellion etc. etc. But some are not 'decided' but are products of an interconnected mass of past decisions and true environmental factors (climate, water, food etc.). For instance, in the modern world, where you are born is a massive factor dictating whether you 'survive' to reproduce.

The same can be applied to ideas, techniques (for instance manufacturing), ideology, social systems etc. etc. its just in each case the 'environmental' pressures are different in each case.

One day someone (else) will understand the importance of cultural diversity in the same way Bio-diversity is important. How else will humans survive if something major changes and we've all forgotten how to light a fire!

[archie]

I think you've hit the nail on the head when say its both.....but i think you could go further. The best way that I ever heard anyone describe theory in archaeology was like a 'tool-kit'. There are so many difffernt theoretcial perspectives out there because there are so many diverse site types. The theory is a reflection of the archaeology that is being excavated or assessed and must be suited to each specific situation, hence using the theory that best fits the situation. I'm not much one for evolutionary perspectives myself but it does appear to lend itself to Paleolithic and Neolithic analysis.

What I would disagree with is that theory has little place on site. It is on the excvation where the analysis of the site formulates and it is through the theoretical perpsctive that people (by which i mean diggers and supervisors) take thats shapes the interpreatation of each individual feature/area excavated!

[P Prentice]

[quote=archie]The theory is a reflection of the archaeology that is being excavated or assessed and must be suited to each specific situation, hence using the theory that best fits the situation.QUOTE]

this statement worries me as it suggests that you fit the theory to the interpretation you have already made

i would though agree that even diggers require a theoretical perspective - hopefully a proper one and not dino's}

[archie]

Don't worry No worries there!

I meant that you approach the site with a theoretical perspective before you've even but a machine bucket in the ground. But it is important that any theory must be grounded in knowledge of the site, rather than what you are particularly interested in (hence the reflection)!!!

[Madweasels]

Isn't this just the stuff that has been going on for the past 40 years or more - ie 'evolutionary', as in Pitt-Rivers, Diffusionism, as in Gordon Childe, and Interpretive, as in Binford, Clarke and Johnson in their various and respective schools of thought?

[Wax]

I tend to think that the current archaeological theories tell you more about the societies doing the theorising than the societies being theorised about. Some things about the past are unknowable, not that that should stop you trying but in the long run it is an intellectual exercise that may have very little relation to what was really going on. Until that time machine appears the past will always be open to interpretation and even then the time traveler will view the past through his/ her own experience.

[P Prentice]

I tend to think that the current archaeological theories tell you more about the societies doing the theorising than the societies being theorised about. .

surely this was always so and indeed is true of they way we see the present world but to dismiss theory as 'an intellectual exercise that may have very little relation ... blah blah' would seem to be suggesting that archaeology is pointless!!!!

Theory underpins everything we think whether you like it not