20th October 2010, 04:16 PM
Wax Wrote:is theory another means for an archaeological elite to spout unintelligible rubbish that has little meaning at the coal face?Theory should not be unintelligible and it is for all archaeologists, not just for an elite of ivory tower scholars. I wrote before that you apply theory every day of your working life, whether you know it or not. The moment you start interpreting you are applying theory. It might be as simple as a comment that a pot resembles a modern vessel and the circumstances of its discovery support the view that the pot had an equivalent function when it was in use. That is still an application of a theoretical approach. I do think that the pressures of commercial archaeology discourage experimental application of theories, because there is no time or money for them, but that is not the case for other theoretical approaches. The key here, as has been mentioned earlier, is that the theory does not have to be written into the report, but is applied at the interpretive stage. It seems to me that many are applying too narrow a definition of theory throughout this discussion. I prefer to think of 'theory' as being the methodology you apply to interpret the data. It could be a purely functional theoretical approach, or it could draw on the latest developments in cognitive science and adopt a fully multi-disciplinary approach. Either way, it is still the application of theory.
Quote:Is archaeology going to go back to being the domain of the gentlemen (idle rich) scholar?xx(If it is, then I wish to be one of those rich scholars.
'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'