30th January 2007, 05:28 AM
I didn't intend to kill off debate m300572, just put it back on thread (albeit just a *little* bit spikily, sorry if I've offended).
The issue of multiple interpretations is an interesting point. I recall Barbera Bender once suggesting that the best answer to the Stonehenge interpretation debate would be to put up a lot of different tents on the plain with different ideas and aspects of society in each and then move them around every so often. On the face of it is sounds very constructive (and cheap!). There are lots of people in a society, all seeing things differently, so why not tell as many of their stories as possible?
The trouble with multivocality though is, what do you do when there are serious concequences in the real world? Climate change is a good example (since ecology functions on equivalent level of interpretive security to archaeology, I would argue). Sooner or later, the scientists had to start pointing out that the identity of the messenger (i.e. industry sponsored 'experts') was important regardless of how many big journal papers they had written. They also managed to do this without giving up on their claim to an objective viewpoint.
Cornelius Haltdorf would have us believe that post-processualism is the enemy of authoritarian ('fascist') ideologues (see online article in Assemblage with bizarre mis-spellings). I don't agree myself, since those with an axe to grind (southern African big business, Aryan Brotherhood, whomever) will hear the 'we welcome all...' part of the message but ignore the '...because all interpretations are equally valid' bit, and then stifle debate themselves.
Personally, I am unsure whether to reject this multivocal notion on the grounds that objectivity should be our goal regardless of whether it is attainable, or alternatively to say 'OK if all interpretations have political remifications I will look for the interpretations that suit my own agenda'. The former seems unattainable, the latter seems cynical at best, if not unprofessional. Is there a third way?
Hmm, I may be accused of running off topic myself here. However, if you define prehistory simply as relating to societies that manifest themselves through material culture and action, but not through text, then the methods we use to investigate, interpret and present our own distant past and the more recent past of groups (Bushmen, Dyaks etc.) are likely to be very similar.
PS m300572"
'..may I call you Unit to save typing time or is that a touch informal?'
any preferences as to how we might shorten your own moniker?
'In the busy market there are fortunes to be won and lost, but in the cherry orchard there is peace'.
Chinese proverb
The issue of multiple interpretations is an interesting point. I recall Barbera Bender once suggesting that the best answer to the Stonehenge interpretation debate would be to put up a lot of different tents on the plain with different ideas and aspects of society in each and then move them around every so often. On the face of it is sounds very constructive (and cheap!). There are lots of people in a society, all seeing things differently, so why not tell as many of their stories as possible?
The trouble with multivocality though is, what do you do when there are serious concequences in the real world? Climate change is a good example (since ecology functions on equivalent level of interpretive security to archaeology, I would argue). Sooner or later, the scientists had to start pointing out that the identity of the messenger (i.e. industry sponsored 'experts') was important regardless of how many big journal papers they had written. They also managed to do this without giving up on their claim to an objective viewpoint.
Cornelius Haltdorf would have us believe that post-processualism is the enemy of authoritarian ('fascist') ideologues (see online article in Assemblage with bizarre mis-spellings). I don't agree myself, since those with an axe to grind (southern African big business, Aryan Brotherhood, whomever) will hear the 'we welcome all...' part of the message but ignore the '...because all interpretations are equally valid' bit, and then stifle debate themselves.
Personally, I am unsure whether to reject this multivocal notion on the grounds that objectivity should be our goal regardless of whether it is attainable, or alternatively to say 'OK if all interpretations have political remifications I will look for the interpretations that suit my own agenda'. The former seems unattainable, the latter seems cynical at best, if not unprofessional. Is there a third way?
Hmm, I may be accused of running off topic myself here. However, if you define prehistory simply as relating to societies that manifest themselves through material culture and action, but not through text, then the methods we use to investigate, interpret and present our own distant past and the more recent past of groups (Bushmen, Dyaks etc.) are likely to be very similar.
PS m300572"
'..may I call you Unit to save typing time or is that a touch informal?'
any preferences as to how we might shorten your own moniker?
'In the busy market there are fortunes to be won and lost, but in the cherry orchard there is peace'.
Chinese proverb