12th February 2007, 09:47 PM
What's in a name? I am leaning towards the idea that any new paradigm in archaeology should actually be given a non-sensical name (such as 'DaDa' for the anti-art movement of the 1915-25 period). And then I discover that two of the protagonists of the DaDa movement were Romanian and that 'Da Da' in Romanian equates to a rather tired 'Yeah Yeah' in English. Which is often the expression that crosses my lips when I hear of theories which don't hang to well with my personal experience of archaeological reality....Yeah, Yeah....
Anyway enough of that, what I wanted to say was that discussion of the widening gap between field and academic archaeology has been going on for as long as I have been involved in archaeology (over 25 years). I think the gap narrowed in the late 80's, but only through the deliberate efforts of some field archaeologists to find out/keep up with, what was happening in archaeological academic thought(and a few inspired uni lecturers who came from the field and retained some roots and friendships and continued a dialogue). But as both Dave Bonner and Gumbo have suggested such 'luxury' as time to read, think and build bridges pretty much went out the door when commercial archaeology came in in the early 90's. The irony is that whilst archaeologists oft trumpet the need to communicate the intricacy and fascination of our subject to the general public, we are quite unable to create an effective dialogue between the academic and commercial sectors of our singular discipline.
This in part may be due to the lack of opportunity to refresh the brain cells by taking a sabbatical from field endeavours and returning to academe. Pretty much a pipe dream these days, what with the continuing low pay-high fees paradox. Although I remember that Gumbo and I had an interesting day or two last year discussing the philosphy of the ownership of heritage down in the Metal Detecting Corner of BAJR whilst all kinds of threat and bluster was breaking out on other BAJR forums. That was a bit like a holiday...
There are important links between commercial and academic archys. Most archaeological 'field' publications are still after all refereed by academic archaeologists and that is a link I think should be maintained. But maybe a 'FieldTAG' conference is what is needed to re-gird the loins of both academic and commercial field archaeologists at a fairly minimal financial outlay. Perhaps it could be on the agenda for 'BAJR-07'.
(PS Having written this, I am reminded that I at present work for a university, albeit a foreign one, and that perhaps I should be doing a bit more myself to bridge gaps. Mea culpa. Then again has anyone noticed how 'clean' academic archaeologists smell.....all kind of flowery and spring-like!!....quite annoying after too long an exposure).
Is it too early to describe ourselves as Post-Blairite?
Anyway enough of that, what I wanted to say was that discussion of the widening gap between field and academic archaeology has been going on for as long as I have been involved in archaeology (over 25 years). I think the gap narrowed in the late 80's, but only through the deliberate efforts of some field archaeologists to find out/keep up with, what was happening in archaeological academic thought(and a few inspired uni lecturers who came from the field and retained some roots and friendships and continued a dialogue). But as both Dave Bonner and Gumbo have suggested such 'luxury' as time to read, think and build bridges pretty much went out the door when commercial archaeology came in in the early 90's. The irony is that whilst archaeologists oft trumpet the need to communicate the intricacy and fascination of our subject to the general public, we are quite unable to create an effective dialogue between the academic and commercial sectors of our singular discipline.
This in part may be due to the lack of opportunity to refresh the brain cells by taking a sabbatical from field endeavours and returning to academe. Pretty much a pipe dream these days, what with the continuing low pay-high fees paradox. Although I remember that Gumbo and I had an interesting day or two last year discussing the philosphy of the ownership of heritage down in the Metal Detecting Corner of BAJR whilst all kinds of threat and bluster was breaking out on other BAJR forums. That was a bit like a holiday...
There are important links between commercial and academic archys. Most archaeological 'field' publications are still after all refereed by academic archaeologists and that is a link I think should be maintained. But maybe a 'FieldTAG' conference is what is needed to re-gird the loins of both academic and commercial field archaeologists at a fairly minimal financial outlay. Perhaps it could be on the agenda for 'BAJR-07'.
(PS Having written this, I am reminded that I at present work for a university, albeit a foreign one, and that perhaps I should be doing a bit more myself to bridge gaps. Mea culpa. Then again has anyone noticed how 'clean' academic archaeologists smell.....all kind of flowery and spring-like!!....quite annoying after too long an exposure).
Is it too early to describe ourselves as Post-Blairite?