To JW Dougherty
First, have you seen the paper indicated by the info? Or did you just
comment the email information? Note that this text, in spite of being
short, clearly outlined a method, not simply the connex between
anthropology and archaeology in general. I agree that the 'historistic'
factor is stronger in Europe and that, consequently it is easier to
communicate about anthropologically conceived approaches to prehistory in
the US. But the subject was 'Anthropological definition of material
culture'. In regard to this method: 1) I doubt about references indicating
apes nests as material 'protoculture' (except the Yerkes 1929). In recent
works about pongid material culture it was not even mentioned as such
(McGrew). The tool-maker concept dominates. 2) I doubt equally about
references regarding the term 'pre-lithic fibroconstructive industries' as
a category in the periodisation of prehistory. And 3), I also have doubts
about references regarding a systematic presentation of this term in the
framework of structural history. As far as I know, European prehistory is
fairly strained in regard to such systematic steps.
Regarding 'processualists' and 'post-processualists': that archaeology runs
through an epistmological phase of critically questionening its methods,
results and outlooks is positive in my view. But this should go much
further. Post-modern grounds are not very reliable with their affinities to
linguistics. I see a chance rather in intercultural comparison of the
'histories of cognition' (Asia/Europe), which forces us to critically
reflect the whole history of the European humanities. In my view the most
critical point is medieval scholasticism. It imposed an absolute trauma
from which Western thought has never recovered.
Best wishes
Nold Egenter
_________________________
JW Dougherty wrote:
>Nold,
>
>You can look even earlier than 1968. Try Willey and Phillips (1958)
>_Method and
>Theory in Archaeology_. They state flatly ". . . archaeology is
>anthropology or it
>is nothing. . ." They are specifically discussing Americanist aracheology in
>distinction from that of European schools which, so we Americans are told,
>tends to
>come from Art History and Classical Studies. In any case, most American
>trained
>archaeologists have degrees in Anthropology, and they think of culture in
>the kinds
>of definitions offered them in Anthropology classes. Even before Willey and
>Phillips, Walter Taylor was arguing for the importance of Anthropological
>thinking
>in understanding archaeological phenomena in 1948. In fact, "scientific"
>archaeology in the Americas has almost always been explicitly
>anthropological, in
>distinction with the historical particularist roots and tendencies of the
>European
>tradition. This dichotomous paradigm is, in my opinion the real root of
>the debate
>between "processualists" and "post-processualists," reflecting itself in the
>Euro-centric emphasis one "textual" arguments on one hand and the root
>empiricism on
>the other.
>
>JWDougherty
>
>Nold Egenter wrote:
>
>> Deja vu?
>>
>> I would be grateful for the references!
>>
>> Nold Egenter
>>
>> _________________________
>>
>> >Welcome to 1968. Or is this just deja vu all over again.
>> >
>> >Dan
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > See our INTERNET-Homepage:
>>http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter
>>
>> Nold Egenter
>> DOFSBT, Chorgasse 19
>> CH-8001 Zuerich, Switzerland
>> Tel.: +41-1-2516075
>> Fx: +41-21-3231707
>> ----or:
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > > > > > See our INTERNET-Homepage: http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter
Nold Egenter
DOFSBT, Chorgasse 19
CH-8001 Zuerich, Switzerland
Tel.: +41-1-2516075
Fx: +41-21-3231707
----or:
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|