8th October 2010, 10:44 AM
i have a suspicion - having conducted research into the hermeneutic spiral via google - that the proponents of Sensible Archaeology, in addition to failing to complete 'Understanding the Neolithic', can not have done too much fieldwork, either.
The process of digging is in itself something of a hermeneutic spiral in which pre-existing knowledge of that which is under investigation is modified during excavation, and in turn expands the parameters of the a priori knowledge* which in turn goes on to further inform excavation; to wit: it's some darker earth (viz); cleaning bits of it reveals edges which are sharply defined; limited excavation goes on to already yield fruit - it has three dimensions, length, breadth and depth. our a priori knowledge tells us this is probably a ditch - we have yet to determine whether this is a common or garden linear feature or if it is - to coin a neologism - an oscillilinear as it has not been properly cleaned, however a vigourous trowelling clarifies that it is indeed a linear feature, a mere common ditch; but what of its dimensions, sides, and base? Further excavation is needed to further the parameters of our knowledge? our suspicion of a feature determines that we investigate the soil anomaly using a priori knowledge, but not certainly knowing that it is a ditch till dug
Oh, but why go through all this analysis, already, we knew all this? my grandmother, god rest her soul, I am teaching to suck eggs from beyond the grave.
However, I imagine there were sensible archaeologists in Colt-Hoare?s day who argued that really, trowels, typology, who needs it, when you have a small army of navvies to smash your way in, eh?
the theory bit Sensible Archaeologists is only a means of providing an overarching interpretative structure without too much detail and thereby attaching such a framework to a single field methodology
hermeneutics like all these interpretative tools are toys; if you throw ?em out your pram ? well, what more can I say?
Sensible Archaeology ? it?s all a bit Daily Mail?
The process of digging is in itself something of a hermeneutic spiral in which pre-existing knowledge of that which is under investigation is modified during excavation, and in turn expands the parameters of the a priori knowledge* which in turn goes on to further inform excavation; to wit: it's some darker earth (viz); cleaning bits of it reveals edges which are sharply defined; limited excavation goes on to already yield fruit - it has three dimensions, length, breadth and depth. our a priori knowledge tells us this is probably a ditch - we have yet to determine whether this is a common or garden linear feature or if it is - to coin a neologism - an oscillilinear as it has not been properly cleaned, however a vigourous trowelling clarifies that it is indeed a linear feature, a mere common ditch; but what of its dimensions, sides, and base? Further excavation is needed to further the parameters of our knowledge? our suspicion of a feature determines that we investigate the soil anomaly using a priori knowledge, but not certainly knowing that it is a ditch till dug
Oh, but why go through all this analysis, already, we knew all this? my grandmother, god rest her soul, I am teaching to suck eggs from beyond the grave.
However, I imagine there were sensible archaeologists in Colt-Hoare?s day who argued that really, trowels, typology, who needs it, when you have a small army of navvies to smash your way in, eh?
the theory bit Sensible Archaeologists is only a means of providing an overarching interpretative structure without too much detail and thereby attaching such a framework to a single field methodology
hermeneutics like all these interpretative tools are toys; if you throw ?em out your pram ? well, what more can I say?
Sensible Archaeology ? it?s all a bit Daily Mail?