Charles Forsyth wrote:
> Frankly, I don't see how you have much time for serious thought given the
> amount of time you appear to be engaged in this increasingly dull line of
> posts.
> Hannah
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Charles Forsyth [log in to unmask]
> Creative Director Ph: +61 2 4782 6333
> Exegesis Pty Ltd Fax: +61 2 4782 6677
> _________________________________________________
Certainly, Charles' point of view is understandable with regard to how the
topic of "Zen archaeology" was being handled and my recent e-mail parallels
his concerns. But further responses about the value of looking at world views
- eastern perspectives or otherwise - highlight the tradition of archaeology
to use anthropological analogy. Jan Kleppe's point is well made and is
basically echoed by David Moyer's point that eastern perspectives can be used
to give us interpretive insight to the patterning of the archaeological
record if we can show empirically how such perspectives - as living elements
of real societies - influence the production, distribution, use and disposal
of material culture. James Connolly's point, that "secular" and "ritual"
behaviours are not mutually exclusive, when combined with the idea that other
world views may actually make no distinction between secular and religious,
leads to the conclusion that many prehistoric peoples, guided by
undifferentiated cosmologies (to use Mary Douglas' terms), would - in many
cases - have used even practical (utilitarian) material culture as ritual,
non-secular devices, thereby making such practices as hunting and gathering
sacred as well as mundane activities.
Given these views, possibly we can refocus the world view discussion so
that it serves important archaeological goals - e.g., extending our
understanding of both the varied and invariant aspects of the nature of
prehistoric societies, giving us new epistemological tools and new
appreciation for the interpretive implications of patterning - even
settlement patterning.
My own interest in this regard is to apply speech act theory to
interpreting the archaeological record with the assumption that material
culture has what I term warranting power, or more specifically, the
stylistics of material culture function as constitutent symbols by which
users transform their "raw behaviour" into human conduct. If part of the emic
perspective of those responsible can be understood as motivated by an
undifferentiated cosmology, then, in communicative terms, these symbolic
stylistics would exist as a means of presencing the sacred powers of the
cosmos in the very moment of material behaviour. These powers would
transform, e.g., the slaughter of land animals, into hunting, the legitimate,
authorized and proper discharging of social duties one has in virtue of being
a "licensed" hunter. Any comments?
Martin Byers
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|