20th October 2010, 04:15 PM
It is not unhelpful to consider the 'Gentleman Scholar' - or more precisely the origins and conduct of Enlightenment Sciences & Humanities.
The Natural Philosopher - the role of Observation and Collation of obscure data - the concept of an abstract 'worth' of research - the broad understandings needed for the tiniest of focuses - creative theorising beyond accepted fact.
More than most, archaeological disciplines - and especially excavation - inherits these traditions directly - rarely is excavation dependent on 'deep' 21st c. technology, or even on 20th c innovation, but rather relies on the most fundemental techniques of natural science - observation and documentation.
This is not a 'mechanical' or fully objective process - (and was never really claimed as such) - it can only be partially delegated (and only to the most attentive of Monkeys....)
Instead, this seemingly dull enterprise (catagorising a fly, collecting whale poo, sifting ash and bone) is merely a visor, procting the viewer from the blinding light of life's complexity - a means to free the mind from the maelstrom and let it settle upon something that can be called fact.
Thus grounded the individual must survey the intellectual landscape of Knowledge to understand their own location - their own observations are not sufficient.
Triangulated, the intellect is satisfied, and able to float through this cultural construct, transcending the Immediate and embracing Existence.
Reductive views of fieldwork are Unhelpfull - philosophically and scientifically informed conceptions of the enterprise and methods can not hurt.
The 'Gentleman Scholar' is defined by his private funding (though this was not always the case) - in short, in absence of any other funds, who else will instigate any archaeology at all?
The Natural Philosopher - the role of Observation and Collation of obscure data - the concept of an abstract 'worth' of research - the broad understandings needed for the tiniest of focuses - creative theorising beyond accepted fact.
More than most, archaeological disciplines - and especially excavation - inherits these traditions directly - rarely is excavation dependent on 'deep' 21st c. technology, or even on 20th c innovation, but rather relies on the most fundemental techniques of natural science - observation and documentation.
This is not a 'mechanical' or fully objective process - (and was never really claimed as such) - it can only be partially delegated (and only to the most attentive of Monkeys....)
Instead, this seemingly dull enterprise (catagorising a fly, collecting whale poo, sifting ash and bone) is merely a visor, procting the viewer from the blinding light of life's complexity - a means to free the mind from the maelstrom and let it settle upon something that can be called fact.
Thus grounded the individual must survey the intellectual landscape of Knowledge to understand their own location - their own observations are not sufficient.
Triangulated, the intellect is satisfied, and able to float through this cultural construct, transcending the Immediate and embracing Existence.
Reductive views of fieldwork are Unhelpfull - philosophically and scientifically informed conceptions of the enterprise and methods can not hurt.
The 'Gentleman Scholar' is defined by his private funding (though this was not always the case) - in short, in absence of any other funds, who else will instigate any archaeology at all?