In response to your queries, some thoughts from someone (background:
undergrad art history, MA and PhD in archaeology, now working in performance
research / age: mid-30s / class / habitus??: brought up western Canadian
lower-middle class, now part of the impoverished UK 'intellectual' class
that likes its coffee freshly ground and its news 'leftwing' / gender:
woman, mother, girl, neutral, because identities are multiple, aren't they?)
who joined during the early days (wasn't the list announced at TAG in1992?).
The list was very lively between '92 and '97 - I remember the good 'ol days
of countless postings debating the potential of Heidegger in creating arch
knowledges - but the flame wars left a few scars. Seemed as though some had
joined the list simply to pointlessly provoke because back then 'theory' was
still a naughty word. Interesting that things have progressed so far beyond
the theory/practice binary that in many disciplines practice is now being
lauded as the new theory.
Perhaps people are weary of some of the still snappish replies to postings?
Bright sparks like Cornelius - who's done so much for the field (hope you
don't mind my saying so...) - don't seem to get much engagement/joy when
they do post something interesting.
Although the site was set up to discuss theory, the uncomfortable exchanges
and silences these days may have to do with still-contested ideas of what
constitutes archaeological knowledges.
But then, does archaeology *have* to have A discrete body of theoretical
writing? Of course the answer to that depends on how you understand theory.
And so it goes around and around and around.
Haven't really run with any threads but wanted to add my meaningfully
constituted historiographical penny's worth.
Angela
A A Piccini
Postdoctoral Research Associate
PARIP (Practice as Research in Performance)
Department of Drama: Theatre, Film, Television
University of Bristol
Cantocks Close, Woodland Road
Bristol BS8 1UP
T: +44 0117 954 5474
E: [log in to unmask]
W: www.bris.ac.uk/parip
28/2/02 1:34 am
Sarah Cross:
> Dear All,
>
> Ok, I have nearly as many Arch Theory posts in this account as I do offers
> from
> dodgy Nigerian Businessmen. And there are three interesting threads I'd like
> to reply to. Things are looking up. But still my question is unanswered. Is
> there something about archaeological theory which makes it unsuitable for
> mailing
> lists?
> Cantanze suggested that I should first introduce myself. What do we need to
> know about each other to have fruitful theoretical discussions? Do we need
> to know background, age, class, gender, ...
>
> Antony says he can't speak outside his circumstance. But why did he bring the
> discussion of recording over from Britarch? What would this group give to the
> discussion that he can't get from Britarch? (BTW not to be overly pedantic
> - but Hodder has been at Stanford for at least 3 years - he can't really count
> as British now, or can he?)
>
> I think that there is a problem talking to an amorphous group about theory
> because
> its fragmented and personal and what's theory to one person is practice to
> another.
> We can write formally about it, and we can talk to friends, but there is a
> discomfort with this inbetween position that mailing lists hold.
>
> Was this list ever lively? (and I agree that it would be awful if it were like
> Britarch which floods mailboxes terribly) I've only been here for about two
> and a half years so perhaps it used to be different. I stay subscribed out
> of a desire for intellectual company - a hope for a different point of view
> than I'd hear usually. (and because it doesn't flood my mailbox)
>
> prove me wrong by running with the threads. But I'm interested in the
> question
> anyhow.
> Sarah
>
> *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ******************************
> For ALL the latest Soccer news on your club, GAA sports results and the
> latest on your F1 stars plus much more check out
> http://sport.iol.ie/sport. Sport On-Line.... It's a passion
>
>
|