Hi everyone,
As we want to revitalize the discussions on theory I am going to contribute a little anecdote and want to open the possibility for some discussion.
Yesterday I walked to the library here on campus. I was carrying an American Antiquity Volume with me, which I had taken out earlier in the day. On half my way to the library I met a fellow student.
He said: “Is that the American Antiquity volume that I need?”
I replied: “I don’t know. What are you looking for?”
“An article on river sedimentation processes.”
“I don’t know if that is in here. I was reading an article on hermeneutics in processual and post-processual analogy making.”
To explain, my friend studies Environmental Archaeology, whereas I do straight archaeology.
What do I want to say with this anecdote?
Well, it made me realize that despite the fact that we slowly seem to be moving beyond the processual / post-processual divide that there still seems to be a gap between ‘theorists’ and ‘specialists’.
Just a question: how many theoretical thinkers are there that have a specialism (e.g. degree) in a ‘science’ subject? Any of you on the list? Equally, are there any specialists in environmental, bone analysis, geomorphology etc that have published or written articles on hermeneutics, social theory? In both cases I can think of one or two, but it is hardly a widespread phenomenon, is it?
Why is it still that the one relies on the other, but that both aspects of archaeology seem to exist in different spheres? Is it only me that has such a feeling?
Is such specialization necessary/ unavoidable / useful? How can we claim to be contextual if we do not study the full implications of scientific analysis of archaeological problems? How can we claim to be scientific if we do not take the entire potential of human actions into account?
What does such a dichotomy mean for the discourse within the discipline? Can one exist without the other? Or does it already do so?
Are we really moving beyond the divide between a science-based archaeology, partially fostered (at least in the UK) by the demands of contract archaeology, and theoretical archaeology? Or have both sides dug in and simply try to defend their own research agendas?
Any comments, ideas etc.?
______________________________
Tobias Richter
University of Wales, Lampeter
______________________________________________________________________________
100 MB gute Gründe! Jetzt anmelden und FreeMail-Speicher erweitern für
Sprach-, Fax- und Mailnachrichten unter http://club.web.de/?mc=021103
|