I have been following the various related discussions on both britarch and
arch-theory. In particular, the professional versus amateur discussion
(expert v novice?). I have this, as yet vague, notion about a continuum of
exposure to tools and
technology techniques, language and practices (e.g., in excavations and
survey) and how these might interrelated over time and within - dare I say
- discursive formations and institutionalized contexts, to bring about deep
(deepening) knowledge and skill and the 'recognition' of such knowledge and
skill by the
community as existing in certain persons, but not others. What I am
interested in is development and change over time of a persons committments
to people they work with and projects they jointly undertake (when able to)
-
the formation and change of a persons ethical identity, if you will.
For instance, does Geoff Carver's question (April 21/ arch-theory) about
the so called comeback of 'academeze' reflect trends in
'pseudo-philosophy' and archaeological theorists use of it, as Geoff would
have it, or more reasonably (less inflammatory) the outcome of some
archaeologists
using natural science techniques/ theories/ methods.
With the recourse to French philosophy etc., being a counterbalancing move
on the part of other archaeologists. Amateur simply being those people
active
in archaeology who have neither access to the hardware of science or
motivation
to compete in a theoretical debate.
I would be interested, and very grateful, to hear from people on how they
have experienced archaeology. Reflecting on the level of technological
sophistication available to them in their archaeology; the
conceptual/linguistic demands made by the technologies they use; the ratio
of theoretical to empirical content in archaeological debates available to
them.
Thanks
David Webster
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|