David,
Tuesday, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, David wrote:
DSW> I have been following the various related discussions
DSW> on both britarch and arch-theory. In particular, the
DSW> professional versus amateur discussion (expert v
DSW> novice?). I have this, as yet vague, notion about a
DSW> continuum of exposure to tools and technology
DSW> techniques, language and practices (e.g., in
DSW> excavations and survey) and how these might
DSW> interrelated over time and within - dare I say -
DSW> discursive formations and institutionalized contexts,
DSW> to bring about deep (deepening) knowledge and skill and
DSW> the 'recognition' of such knowledge and skill by the
DSW> community as existing in certain persons, but not
DSW> others.
Just a note here that your FOG index went off the map:-).
DSW> What I am interested in is development and
DSW> change over time of a persons committments to people
DSW> they work with and projects they jointly undertake
DSW> (when able to) - the formation and change of a persons
DSW> ethical identity, if you will.
This is an interesting question because personal
relationships and animosities quite often effect the way in
which one archaeologist's work may be represented by
another. There is often little qualitative difference, just
that relationship.
DSW> For instance, does Geoff Carver's question (April 21/
DSW> arch-theory) about the so called comeback of
DSW> 'academeze' reflect trends in 'pseudo-philosophy' and
DSW> archaeological theorists use of it, as Geoff would have
DSW> it, or more reasonably (less inflammatory) the outcome
DSW> of some archaeologists using natural science
DSW> techniques/ theories/ methods. With the recourse to
DSW> French philosophy etc., being a counterbalancing move
DSW> on the part of other archaeologists. Amateur simply
DSW> being those people active in archaeology who have
DSW> neither access to the hardware of science or motivation
DSW> to compete in a theoretical debate.
My own thought is that archaeology never deals with people,
but rather only with the durable traces of their passage.
This is profoundly limiting in what kinds of research
questions you can pose, and how likely you will be to get
data that offer an answer. This is a prehistorian's bias
though. Archaeologists that derive their disciplinary
training from Classics, History, or Art History, approach
the issue from very divergent mind sets. In the US, many of
us saw the appearance of historic archaeology as a means of
testing our methods and theory. However, over time the two
approaches have gradually diverged to the point where
communication may be more problematic than we like to think.
DSW> I would be interested, and very grateful, to hear from
DSW> people on how they have experienced archaeology.
DSW> Reflecting on the level of technological sophistication
DSW> available to them in their archaeology; the
DSW> conceptual/linguistic demands made by the technologies
DSW> they use; the ratio of theoretical to empirical content
DSW> in archaeological debates available to them.
Because I work in CRM, usually, technologically
sophisticated techniques are of limited availability.
Budgets determine what we can use. Also data sets are often
limited. An ethic of site preservation mandates minimal
intrusive effects. I participate in Arch-l in order to
maintain some familiarity with other domains in the field.
I prefer not to distinguish strongly between theory and
empirical content because without empirical content, theory
is empty. It has no possible relevance to the world where we
interact with objects and other people. We do construct
interpretations of experience. But, if we deny our
interpretations empirical content and confuse interpretation
of experience with fiction, the next time we cross a street
we could easily be killed by a bus whose empirical content
we deny, or the interpretation of which we are busily
critiquing.
John W Dougherty mailto:[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
