Sensible Archaeology?

[Sparky]

I take it you are working as a sociologist or anthropologist dealing with real living people?

[Cautionary Tale]

Me? - in that instance, I borrowed elements of those particular hats to best describe the objectives/ethos of the project.

[Sparky]

I see where you are coming from but I often find it morally awkward to stand in a field and place my feet in the soles of a Bronze Age chap and see the world through their eyes. My wife, who is a sociologist and academic, finds archaeologists' use of phenomeonology incomprehendible and a blatant misuse. Anthroplogist friends share the same view. Tilley has a lot to answer for not unless he's invented a consciousness timemachine.

[Sparky]

Actually, I don't think I mean a 'blatant misuse' just more of a 'misuse'

[Cautionary Tale]

I wish I could elaborate on the project (it's somewhat sensitive) but I shared the concerns indicated, hence the soul searching. In the end, it became more of an issue in terms of the present population's experience of the recent historic landscape rather than historic (never mind prehistoric) peoples. I fear that awkward explanation may not completely satisfy - will let the cat out of the bag when I can.

[Sparky]

No worries. I understand and, to tell you the truth, I often find myself wandering in that direction; its an institutionalisation thing. Good luck!

[gwyl]

i have a suspicion - having conducted research into the hermeneutic spiral via google - that the proponents of Sensible Archaeology, in addition to failing to complete 'Understanding the Neolithic', can not have done too much fieldwork, either.

The process of digging is in itself something of a hermeneutic spiral in which pre-existing knowledge of that which is under investigation is modified during excavation, and in turn expands the parameters of the a priori knowledge* which in turn goes on to further inform excavation; to wit: it's some darker earth (viz); cleaning bits of it reveals edges which are sharply defined; limited excavation goes on to already yield fruit - it has three dimensions, length, breadth and depth. our a priori knowledge tells us this is probably a ditch - we have yet to determine whether this is a common or garden linear feature or if it is - to coin a neologism - an oscillilinear as it has not been properly cleaned, however a vigourous trowelling clarifies that it is indeed a linear feature, a mere common ditch; but what of its dimensions, sides, and base? Further excavation is needed to further the parameters of our knowledge? our suspicion of a feature determines that we investigate the soil anomaly using a priori knowledge, but not certainly knowing that it is a ditch till dug

Oh, but why go through all this analysis, already, we knew all this? my grandmother, god rest her soul, I am teaching to suck eggs from beyond the grave.

However, I imagine there were sensible archaeologists in Colt-Hoare?s day who argued that really, trowels, typology, who needs it, when you have a small army of navvies to smash your way in, eh?

the theory bit Sensible Archaeologists is only a means of providing an overarching interpretative structure without too much detail and thereby attaching such a framework to a single field methodology

hermeneutics like all these interpretative tools are toys; if you throw ?em out your pram ? well, what more can I say?

Sensible Archaeology ? it?s all a bit Daily Mail?

[Sparky]

Still don't see how its in any Daily Mail or Neo-con. As the guy said, it shouldn't be taken seriously. Nothing wrong with the jargon as long as you're familar with the code. Nothing wrong in questioning either which is what I see as most important.

[Sparky]

And surely jargonisation is a rather exclusive coding system designed by and for a small elite. An open and more shared language is surely a Marxist approach.

[Dinosaur]

Anyone on any of my sites who describes a feature as 'an oscillilinear' is, however, still gonna be harming their future employment prospects !

Is that actually a real word?