Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Is it just me or does Binford make up his own words, I have a dim memory of having to do a group project based on one of his articles in first year at uni and I think it took four of us several reads to work out what the article was even about!
Lucy
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by lucy78green
Is it just me or does Binford make up his own words, I have a dim memory of having to do a group project based on one of his articles in first year at uni and I think it took four of us several reads to work out what the article was even about!
Lucy
Couldn't say, to be honest - I have a vague meomry of falling asleep about halfway through the first paragraph...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Thanks for all the comments. I guess most reflect why we are field not academic archaeologists. Theory is 'where you are coming from' according to one poncy lecturer. That's Anglesey then.
I'm not saying theory is a waste of time, I just couldn't understand what the hell is being said. Not just the invented words and paragraph long sentances, the whole thing from beginning to end. I would prefer to read about it all in the style of say John Steinbeck, or maybe Sid the Sexist, or even a job advert for community-liason officer for disadvantaged hedgehogs in Tower Hamlets. (it's getting late).
It's starting to come back to me now - I remember identifying most strongly with the 'young fogeys', 'til I realised it was a derogatory term for theory-heathens used by smart-ass theorists.
Can anyone give some easy definitions of post-processual (sp?) processual (if there is such a thing), marxist theory, and any other branches of thought. I recognise most of the names mentioned, but was probably too drunk to read any of them. Hasn't anyone new come along in say the last 10 years with a blow-them-all-away theory or paradigm? The young fogey with no name?
My contribution to 'Archaeological theory for diggers'
paradigm - an idea or set of ideas. I think. This is a great word to throw into a conversation casually.
concept - an idea or set of ideas. I think. Overused and devalued.
theory - an idea or set of ideas. I think. Available in different flavours.
This can't be right - ideas? I remember a quotation from somewhere (Von Daniken preface??) that said it didn't matter where a theory came from - it could be a dream you had. Starting to make sense now.
I'm interested in what anyone reckons each theory actually means, based on what's in your head, as well as some kind of definitive definitions if anyone can be arsed.
Any theorists feel free to contribute - but no more than 3 syllable words, keep it snappy, but don't dumb it down.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Some of the basic words to clear up
deductive reasoning - Is this 'suck it and see'?(Sherlock Holmes - remove all disproven ideas - the one left on the table is the right one, no matter how ludicrous).
inductive - Make a seeping statement then try and prove it somehow by looking at a small bit of it.
hypothetico-deductive - guess what will happen, then try it and see.
These are 'industry standard' - there aren't any shorter alternatives.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
clearly spoken Pete.... I always wondered what some of these terms meant!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Oh good I'm glad i wasn't the only one then.
I always used to sit quitely in a corner and hide behind a pintglass when my fellow students started coming out with all that stuff
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
erm, I seem to remember having a heated debate about my PhD proposal the other week with a certain person on this forum who shall remain nameless, and the fact that it wasn't written in "scientific" language. Poncey language you mean. The English language has plenty of easily understood words, so why use five of them in a combination of your choosing to say the same thing. Means it won't fit on the damned form as well.....
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
So..... its seems to me there's a problemn with the words people use but I really think some of the ideas are great.
The great thing about theory or interpretive archaeology is that we can get to a better understanding of the past by being critical of ourselves.
I don't mean trying to get rid of our assumptions but by understanding 'where we are coming from' and knowing that not all people have the same ideas about what something is, we can give better suggestings for the past.
For example, I may think a pot is a drinks container but to others it may be a display of wealth, a piece of rubbish, a marker of ethincity, a person etc.
Being critical is only one aspect of what 'theroy' really is, but theres lots of good stuff about it.
all we need is to get rid of the jargon.
Rhi
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
So..... its seems to me there's a problemn with the words people use but I really think some of the ideas are great.
The great thing about theory or interpretive archaeology is that we can get to a better understanding of the past by being critical of ourselves.
I don't mean trying to get rid of our assumptions but by understanding 'where we are coming from' and knowing that not all people have the same ideas about what something is, we can give better suggestings for the past.
For example, I may think a pot is a drinks container but to others it may be a display of wealth, a piece of rubbish, a marker of ethincity, a person etc.
Being critical is only one aspect of what 'theroy' really is, but theres lots of good stuff about it.
all we need is to get rid of the jargon.
Rhi
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Well I've never met anyone, at uni or in the field who either cared or even vaguely understood any of this theory stuff. It just keeps some very dull people in work, thankfully nowhere near wherever I may be.
Personally I think I can quite happily spend the rest of my career in blissful ignorance of the implications of Post-processual Neo-Tolkienian Aaardvark Leninism, or whatever the latest 'craze' is.
