"You make a valid point that lived experience provides an understanding that theories don't."
Thank you for that. I was beginning to think the only knowledge for academicians is book knowledge. Like you I hold the opposite view. Unless our reasoning is rooted in experience our conclusions can only be "academic". I would even go one step further and argue when Reason is remote from the living Experience of people, Society begins to decay.
You write, "The difference lies in the interpretation of "practical", or really, what was in some way "important" ".
We can be "practical" in our pursuit of what is "important". Hauling megaliths some 250 km over harsh terrain is not "practical". No matter how "important" we may believe Stonehenge was. In my view, "survival" was the most "important" pursuit of prehistoric people. And "practical" is the most efficient and effective path to survival.
Growing up, I have only known Macedonia as part of Greece. Slavic Macedonia was (is) a geopolitical invention of Tito.
[log in to unmask]
From: Eve Richardson <[log in to unmask]>
To: kostadinos <[log in to unmask]>; BRITARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Jan 26, 2016 03:09 PM
Subject: Re: 10,000BC new series/ Kostas' experience and others
On 26-Jan-2016 12:29 PM, Constantinos Ragazas wrote:
> Read my above comments. And stop reading too many books.
You make a valid point that lived experience provides an understanding
that theories don't.
One way in which North American archaeology differs from British is that
it is aligned with (if not viewed as a subset of) anthropology. And I
sometimes wish that British archaeologists would look at possible
But this also means, Kostas, that the circumstances of yours and your
grandmother's experience would have to be looked at in a much wider
context. This would include factors like social structure, power
structure, and dissemination of knowledge (much of which in the past
would have been part and parcel of spiritual life/practice, as it still
is among traditional aboriginal groups).
This is where wider reading is important - to take your own experience
and compare it to other times and places. Because the hardship of your
life, your practical experience, is important to understanding aspects
of living that others of us lack, but at the same time it may have been
substantially different in important ways from the ancient cultures you
(and we) are considering.
The origin of this discussion was (I believe) that places like
Stonehenge had to have had a 'practical' function or people would not
have invested the time and effort in building them. I agree, absolutely.
Same holds true today. The difference lies in the interpretation of
"practical", or really, what was in some way "important". And what is
"important" to one people isn't always obvious to another.
By the way - I love Macedonian music and dance. Greek, too. (I don't
know which you consider yourself to be, and I know that's a political
hot potato.) I wonder, did these happen in your village, and when? Where
in the annual cycle did they fit? And how are they "practical"? They
certainly aren't simple, so people had a place in their lives for
evolving complex rhythms and dance patterns. And probably weaving and
embroidery. Those patterns aren't practical. Yet the most beautiful and
time-consuming pieces of handwork are created by women whose lives are
full of hardship and who wear those hard-worked pieces in their daily
lives. (I have Palestinian and Guatemalan examples, admittedly from warm
climates, but Native work here is Canada can also be sumptuous.)
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<a href="https: www.avast.com="" antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus