-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Ian J. Windsor, FRNS. <[log in to unmask]>
To: arch-theory <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 23 September 1998 00:52
Subject: Re: "Zen archaeology"
Dear Ian:
>If an archaeologist finds a hole in the ground it is a hole in the ground
and
there may or may not be some evidence concerning the nature of it's use. To
say that it's purpose was `ritual' is blatantly ridiculous.
This presupposes a distinction between ritual and secular in the past.
Whether or not the material remains of a past event show evidence of a
'religious' nature does not mean it isn't ritual. As digging a hole in the
ground is in some way connected to the activities of past peoples, it is
therefore connected to their behaviour and understanding of their world. In
this way, even the smallest activity can be considered ritualistic, as it is
the product of a particular cosmology. It may not, however, be 'religious'.
This isn't just splitting hairs over terminology. Brushing one's teeth can
be as much a ritual as anything. It just doesn't have a obvious religious
connection.
>If Zen may be considered a means to free the mind from the contraints of
logic then it has no place in archaeology as logic is the only means we have
to interpret what remains to us of the past.
I always felt that the wonderful thing about prehistory is that the
impossible becomes possible and the illogical becomes logical. If we rely on
deductive reasoning, logic and justifiable process, we blinker ourselves to
a wider world.
>Zen is quoted as being a means
to transcend reason, surely this kind of thinking is not acceptable to
people whoclaim to be scientists.
I think you would find that many people don't actually consider archaeology
as a science.
James.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|