Hi Charles,
You make a good argument for 'meaning' as consensual and contextual,
something the so-called 'zen mind' perspective has, by definition, to parse
into an other order of understanding. The post-modern contribution to
archaeology, on the other hand, applies directly to that meaningful aspect
of human social action as a subject of interest.
If anything, the post-modern critique has enlightened interpretation,
whether it be the archaeological record or some other meaningful text,
through it's metaphor for dialogic and interactive human process. It at
least offers methods to approach meanings of other texts, separated in
space, time, social action and context, something which the 'zen mind'
perspective ironically seems to consider a hindrance to meaningful human
understanding!
Cheers,
--Lenny__
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Byers <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: "Zen archaeology"
>
>
>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
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|