BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Sensible Archaeology?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Unitof1 Wrote:I have this theory that it was ritual lazyness which led to every revolution that ever happened
I call it the lazy ritual theory

Bloody hell! Uo1 has said something I agree with!!!!! :0 I'm off to get me tin hat because the sky will be falling shortly!! Smile Don't forget stupidity too. Much can be achieved by the judicious application of laziness and stupidity.
Oxbeast Wrote:if you approach the past with the attitude that people were much the same as we are, and logical and pragmatic and suchlike, how do you then explain actual ritual deposits? Other than saying, well, don't really know...
Why would you bury babies under certain parts of the floor of the roundhouse? Might that suggest that that part of the roundhouse had some kind of significance?
All the interpretation depends on theory, even if its just 'well, stands to reason, mate'.

This is the kind of area where cognitive theory comes into its own. It's about the only theoretical approach that has ever appeared relatively practical, IMNSHO. That said, I'm sure each theoretical framework has its place. The problem is that people invest too much intellectual and emotional capital in just one approach rather than viewing each theory as a tool in a large theoretical toolbox. Thus, they look for universal application of their pet theory, where they should use the appropriate theory for the job.

Now, who was it muttering about post-processualists? Bintliff's article 'Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists' (Norw. Arch. Rev., Vol. 26, No. 2, 1993) always struck me as one of the better responses to Post-Processualism. Well worth a read and moderately amusing too.
Spot on Odinn.

Bintlif using as an example Wittgenstein's (Philisolphical Investigations) tool-box of words used in suitable language to overcome philisophical problems. Great article!
Odinn Wrote:Bintliff's article 'Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists' (Norw. Arch. Rev., Vol. 26, No. 2, 1993)
Just read it. Now I know what an axe being ground sounds like.. :face-stir:
When a forest needs cleared...
Well, continuing the euphemisms, he sets up a strawman of what he would desperately like 'post-modernism' to be, situates postmodernism as the bedfellow of late 20th century globalising capitalism (to which I can only say WTF?), and eventually meanders around to articulating a sort of 'all ideas should be considered' archaeology of the future, which he hangs on the hook of Renfrew's cognitive processualism*.

Except that wasn't that (multivocality, multiple models, a rejection of a single dominant discourse) one of the core strengths of post-processualism as set against earlier explicitly processualist thought?



*Claiming that it will 'undeniably' be the theoretical archaeology of the 1990s. :I
BRahn Wrote:Well, continuing the euphemisms, he sets up a strawman of what he would desperately like 'post-modernism' to be, situates postmodernism as the bedfellow of late 20th century globalising capitalism (to which I can only say WTF?), and eventually meanders around to articulating a sort of 'all ideas should be considered' archaeology of the future, which he hangs on the hook of Renfrew's cognitive processualism*.

Except that wasn't that (multivocality, multiple models, a rejection of a single dominant discourse) one of the core strengths of post-processualism as set against earlier explicitly processualist thought?



*Claiming that it will 'undeniably' be the theoretical archaeology of the 1990s. :I

Wasn't post-processualism the b*****d sibling of post-modernism, hasn't the latter been discredited through the events of the last 20 years and doesn't that mean that the illegitimate sibling is equally discredited. Nothing except whinging self-seeking self-aggrandising rhetoric has appeared to replace the processual dialectical approach since the days of Gordon Childe.
BRahn,
I'm surprised that you are unfamiliar with the idea of post-moderism as the bedfellow of late 20th century globalising capitalism. I don't have John Bintliff's articles to hand for the references but a quick search of Wikipedia brings up the following:

"Literary critic Fredric Jameson describes postmodernism as the "dominant cultural logic of late capitalism." "Late capitalism" refers to the phase of capitalism after World War II, as described by economist Ernest Mandel; the term refers to the same period sometimes described by "globalization", "multinational capitalism", or "consumer capitalism". Jameson's work studies the postmodern in contexts of aesthetics, politics, philosophy, and economics.[2]"

Jameson was a Marxist, a stance not unfamiliar with the post-processual movement. I don't believe it is coincidental that post-processualism experienced a foothold during the laissez faire of Thatcherism.

Any chance of citing Bintliff's references?
I agree Odin there have been plenty of stupid ritual theories as well

I know that this is not theoretical but I have always been over awed by that cutting edge hard working unit director Hodder who was able through his examination of petrographic thin section to differentiate the clay sources of roman pottery and produce a much needed distribution network using the streams of the Sussex amongst other successes with the expert examination of thin section. Pity we do not see much more of that much needed work around the country. I have attempted it myself but unfortunately my ocular perception has mostly identified moon dust which due to my insecurity with ritual explanation and a pig headed refusal to give any archaeological credit to Erich von Daniken has forced me to destroy the evidence. In spite of all this I still hold to the dream that Sussex streams were used in the distribution of Roman pottery or clay for making pottery although I do sometimes wonder if there was some moon dust involved.
Erm... Gordon Childe was a Marxist and Post-processualism is by definition not one approach but many and thus hard to discredit in entirety, 'it' merely being a reaction to the overly mechanistic, Binfordian, empirical, environmentally deterministic, and uniformitarian approaches that preceded 'it'. As such PP is surely the 'bastard sibling' or child of P.

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/...1/rec.html
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18