8th October 2010, 11:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 8th October 2010, 11:53 PM by Stuart Rathbone.)
Hi, well I?ve just got back from driving from one side of Ireland to the other and back again and it seems quite a lot has been going on here!
Firstly let me just say that the point of setting up the CSA was to have a debate about some issues that had been bugging me, and I?m delighted to see that happening here. Thanks for the comments, good and bad, it?s all very interesting. Secondly I want to apologise because this is going to be quite a lengthy post as I want to respond to a number of different comments.
Ok, so the first thing to explain is that the CSA was set up a while ago when I lost my temper over a particular incident and needed to get some things off my chest. After I started it I quickly got about 50 members who were almost universally archaeologists that I had worked with over the years. Because of this there was no need to explain that it wasn?t a totally serious enterprise, as they all knew me and would know when I was joking and when I was being serious. However the numbers of the group quickly topped out and not much has been happening with it over the summer as I was busy with work. The other day whilst visiting some forums as part of the ?day job? I decided to post up a general invite. If people who don?t know me didn?t get the humour then I realise the site would just seem completely obnoxious. I don?t know, I thought there were enough clues but obviously not for everyone and that is clearly my fault. Sorry.
Right so the next thing I wanted to say was about the call of ?neo con?. That?s quite interesting. The style of writing that I was consciously trying to ape was the sort of frothy mouthed polemics that come out of the far left. It?s a style renowned for its intolerance and belligerence and in particular it?s vicious level of infighting. So whilst I?ve not read much from neo-cons I would imagine that the intolerance and belligerence would be similar. Again I?m not being 100% serious with this stuff, so you know...
What?s been said here is well worth bearing in mind though, and seeing the reaction I will probably tone things down a bit in the future. Think of it as a new magazine where the house style hasn?t quite been nailed down yet, and give us a little bit of slack as I try to get it right.
The next thing to address, and it?s something that?s been on my mind ever since I started this thing, is who on earth do I think I am to adjudicate what counts as sensible archaeology? Well quite literally, I?m no one. I?m a field archaeologist, and with my own work I place the emphasis on precise descriptions of the archaeology I work on, a detailed account of site formation and dating evidence, a big chunk of background research and endeavour to keep the writing as comprehensible as possible. Over the years I have become more and more irritated with the ?other? stuff, because the use of language is so abysmal and simple concepts are being hidden behind a screen of barely comprehensible sentences that actively hinder the readers understanding for little noticeable gain and because I find in many instances where theoretical perspectives lead a project that facts are so often ignored or deliberately altered in order to support the theory. What I?m trying to do is question the nature of some current work but to so with a mixture of valid criticism and humour.
I would also say that the internet is full of anonymous people making unpleasant remarks about other peoples work. I didn?t want to do that so I have been purposely using my own name and therefore I will stand behind anything I write, admit when I?ve been proven wrong, apologise to anyone I have unfairly offended etc. To those who questioned my credentials and level of experience, I don?t want to get into a peeing contest, but you can google me if you feel the need to, this is clearly not a pseudonym
Some more specific remarks
@Kevin
That?s great that you can see value in some of these things. I?d love it if you?d post a response on the groups page? That?s exactly the sort of dialogue I?m looking for as I certainly don?t get them. Either I just don?t see the point (Ford Transit) or I can?t see past the misrepresentation of the facts (Townend). The page won?t descend into a flame fest as I?ll delete anything like that, so feel free to post a proper response. Or call me mindless again, I don?t mind
@Gwyl
I?m not sure how a quick joke about hermeneutics can be taken as a measure of the amount of field work I have or haven?t done, but ok? Anyway that particular school of thought always seemed to me like a clever solution to a problem no one actually had
@Sparky
Hey, you even get the Marxism! But I?m particularly interested in what you said about archaeologists misuse of Phenomenology, I think that?s a big problem with archaeologists borrowing theories from other disciplines and not necessarily getting the right end of the stick, another example of which happened with Wittgenstein.
And finally, the group has gained about 20 new members over the past 2 days, so welcome to everyone who joined, I?ll look forward to hearing from you.
Firstly let me just say that the point of setting up the CSA was to have a debate about some issues that had been bugging me, and I?m delighted to see that happening here. Thanks for the comments, good and bad, it?s all very interesting. Secondly I want to apologise because this is going to be quite a lengthy post as I want to respond to a number of different comments.
Ok, so the first thing to explain is that the CSA was set up a while ago when I lost my temper over a particular incident and needed to get some things off my chest. After I started it I quickly got about 50 members who were almost universally archaeologists that I had worked with over the years. Because of this there was no need to explain that it wasn?t a totally serious enterprise, as they all knew me and would know when I was joking and when I was being serious. However the numbers of the group quickly topped out and not much has been happening with it over the summer as I was busy with work. The other day whilst visiting some forums as part of the ?day job? I decided to post up a general invite. If people who don?t know me didn?t get the humour then I realise the site would just seem completely obnoxious. I don?t know, I thought there were enough clues but obviously not for everyone and that is clearly my fault. Sorry.
Right so the next thing I wanted to say was about the call of ?neo con?. That?s quite interesting. The style of writing that I was consciously trying to ape was the sort of frothy mouthed polemics that come out of the far left. It?s a style renowned for its intolerance and belligerence and in particular it?s vicious level of infighting. So whilst I?ve not read much from neo-cons I would imagine that the intolerance and belligerence would be similar. Again I?m not being 100% serious with this stuff, so you know...
What?s been said here is well worth bearing in mind though, and seeing the reaction I will probably tone things down a bit in the future. Think of it as a new magazine where the house style hasn?t quite been nailed down yet, and give us a little bit of slack as I try to get it right.
The next thing to address, and it?s something that?s been on my mind ever since I started this thing, is who on earth do I think I am to adjudicate what counts as sensible archaeology? Well quite literally, I?m no one. I?m a field archaeologist, and with my own work I place the emphasis on precise descriptions of the archaeology I work on, a detailed account of site formation and dating evidence, a big chunk of background research and endeavour to keep the writing as comprehensible as possible. Over the years I have become more and more irritated with the ?other? stuff, because the use of language is so abysmal and simple concepts are being hidden behind a screen of barely comprehensible sentences that actively hinder the readers understanding for little noticeable gain and because I find in many instances where theoretical perspectives lead a project that facts are so often ignored or deliberately altered in order to support the theory. What I?m trying to do is question the nature of some current work but to so with a mixture of valid criticism and humour.
I would also say that the internet is full of anonymous people making unpleasant remarks about other peoples work. I didn?t want to do that so I have been purposely using my own name and therefore I will stand behind anything I write, admit when I?ve been proven wrong, apologise to anyone I have unfairly offended etc. To those who questioned my credentials and level of experience, I don?t want to get into a peeing contest, but you can google me if you feel the need to, this is clearly not a pseudonym
Some more specific remarks
@Kevin
That?s great that you can see value in some of these things. I?d love it if you?d post a response on the groups page? That?s exactly the sort of dialogue I?m looking for as I certainly don?t get them. Either I just don?t see the point (Ford Transit) or I can?t see past the misrepresentation of the facts (Townend). The page won?t descend into a flame fest as I?ll delete anything like that, so feel free to post a proper response. Or call me mindless again, I don?t mind
@Gwyl
I?m not sure how a quick joke about hermeneutics can be taken as a measure of the amount of field work I have or haven?t done, but ok? Anyway that particular school of thought always seemed to me like a clever solution to a problem no one actually had
@Sparky
Hey, you even get the Marxism! But I?m particularly interested in what you said about archaeologists misuse of Phenomenology, I think that?s a big problem with archaeologists borrowing theories from other disciplines and not necessarily getting the right end of the stick, another example of which happened with Wittgenstein.
And finally, the group has gained about 20 new members over the past 2 days, so welcome to everyone who joined, I?ll look forward to hearing from you.