Re: Charter sci.archaeology

On Mar 5, 12:21 am, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 4 Mar, 15:23, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:23 pm, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 Mar, 15:53, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:12 pm, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 Mar, 11:59, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:17 pm, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 28 Feb, 14:35, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:47 pm, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 28 Feb, 10:14, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 11:20 pm, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 27 Feb, 21:08, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 9, 11:32 pm, flexf...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 9 Feb, 08:16, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 9, 2:43 am, "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 8, 3:57 pm, "chazwin" <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:03 pm, prd <X_hea...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In sci.archaeology message news:45c9cb48$0$81452$dbd4f001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
by "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> . . . :

chazwin <chazwy...@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
prd wrote:
"Tedd Jacobs" :
"Tom McDonald" wrote...
prd wrote:
"Peter Alaca" . . . :
chazwin wrote:

In essense the statement in the charter of sci.arch needs to be
general enough to reject illegal or imoral 'piracy' whilst allowing
public and open sites to be mentioned.

Such as:
3. To query other interested archaeologists about
resources which could be made generally available.
(Whilst respecting the need not to disclose the locations
or sensitive or endangered sites).

[It might also be a good idea to try to reduce American-centricity by
being aware that there are posters from other countries that
contribute to the forum.]

Last year an American poster accused this group of
Euro- and Scandinavian centricity.

Not accussed, observed a fact. In fact, you presented
the facts and I sorted them out for you.
You're welcome.

Now the group appears to have dived into
idio-centricity and theo-centriciity.

There is nothing greatly wrong with the charter except
the fact that nobody really cares about it and those
who want to aspouse kookish ideas, especially, don't want
to abide by it

Well maybe we shoudl just reject it?

It isn't up for revision at this point. One rejects a charter by
disregarding it. It is done often enough.

Just so long as no one smacks me in the face for mentioning the word
"evolution" again.!!

Are you going to reply to tk's post in the thread you reference? He
took a pretty fair run at your initial post. If he is on to what you
were intending with that post, I for one would be interested in
following up on it with you

I had not realised that anyone had taken it seriously. Due to the
lambasting I got , I have taken my eyes off sci..arch recently in
favour of alt.philosophy. I am away for he next ten days but will try
to catch up to the evolution issue on my return.
See you soon.
Chazwin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the "evolution issue" you reference actually goes somewhat
wider. You are clearly upset by what you see as a narrow "find
fetishist" mentality in archaeology, or by a perceived division
between the "finders" and the "theorists".

Tilley's work _is_ of interest, especially his critiques of the
assorted recent "fashions" in the theory of archaeology and
anthropology and the ensuing retreat from creative fusion among the
related sciences, but your initial approach seemed to be a bit vague
to me (and possibly to others here).

I haven't read any of Chris' works for over ten years. Can you let me
have the title ?

If you could specify your question/thesis/angle/whatever in more
detail, maybe the group could respond more positively.

I am not an archaeologist, merely an interested amateur historian, so
I don't expect I can add much to such a discussion, but I know there
are others here, much better qualified by academic and field
experience, who can.

I find cross-disciplinary studies, as exemplified by _The Anglo-
Saxons: from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century_, ed. Hines,
(Boydell Press, Woodbridge UK, 1997)
fascinating, for the insights brought to each rather narrow field by
those with an understanding of other, related fields.

Pete Stretton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi again -- sorry for the delayed reply.

The reference was to a piece I found here:

http://archaeology.kiev.ua/meta/tilley.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/27g6va

Interesting - both sites are unavailable!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah! Durnit! They were available yesterday, when I made the tunyurl.
I see they are saying their bandwidth has been exceeded, but I suspect
that a Ukrainian site displaying what must be copyright material might
have other, more serious problems!

I'll keep trying them and try to post an extract if it reappears.

The piece comprises a satirical fable about various "fashionable"
movements in archaeological and historical theory, followed by a
rather bitter-sounding piece of discourse analysis about
archaeological writing/reading, politics and power-structures.

As I said, interesting, though it might raise more questions than it
answers.

I remember being carried away with a sense of "Aha! it all fits!"
enthusiasm after hearing Lévi-Strauss lecture in London, back in the
late 60s, but I've since then asked myself about the real value of
some of those French masters of thought, considering some of the
effects of the genies they appear to have let out of the bottle and
into the air of academia.

No one said it was supposed to be easy. Postmoderism has let many
genies go free. The thing is that these genies are both real and
bogus. The very fact that it is sometimes hard to tell them apart is
sufficient testamony that the great shibboleths of moderity and
scientism that they undermine were not as useful, great or valid as we
once were happy to think. We live in a far more critical age, not so
bound by ideology or reliance on so called scientific fact.

All the best,
Pete Stretton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never demanded "easy" -- after all, I have read Derrida, Foucault et
al., and I've never met anyone who seriously thought that was easy.

And I don't have any objection to being critical, so long as the
"deconstruction" doesn't lose the "con" (no French pun intended).
Science, as opposed to scientism, is full of admitted mistakes,
backtracking, rethinking, tentative new approaches, etc., as well as
the pig-headedness, bootlicking and academic "tree-climbing to crap on
those below" that you, and I, would like to see gone.

I think maybe it is less to do with actual "mistake" but the paucity
of the sort of answers science can provide the "new archaeology" of
David Clarke such as; how many man-hours it take to build a ditch then
using that to offer estimates on population when we have not the
slightest idea if the ditch were cut in a day or 3 years; nor have we
a notion of cultural attitudes to work and leisure. Clarke's
archaeology was great a producing totally anachronistc views about the
past using numbers and system theory. I can agree that if the Romans
had employed systems theory then that would be a most excellent way to
describe the empire.

The point being that what is developed using a deconstructivist
approach needs to be a positive advance on the pre-deconstruction
state of play, and too often it seems to me that that is overlooked in
the process, so that what is left is mere destruction.

Maybe that is what archaeology should be: a realisation that the past
can only be constructed in the present and that THAT realisation is
the only way to actually get closer to the past in some way, by
recognising the interests of the present as anachronistic. This is
where contextualisation have its role.

There's also the danger of getting stuck in metaland and never
returning to the stuff you meta-ed in the first place.

I can see the danger but cannot think of an archaeological example of
where this has actually happened, though in the streams of
consciousness of the French philospohers it seems de rigeur.

Pete Stretton- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm absolutely in agreement with you on the futility of such pseudo-
scientific attempts as these population "calculations".

And I also agree that no discourse is free of its own historical
context, so I think we are fundamentally in agreement there too. It
seems to me, though, that no real purpose is served by the "did-
didn't" arguments about who is more/less tainted by "ideology", and
it's better to use every available tool to try to understand whatever
is the object of study.
We all bring our baggage to our reading, to
our thinking and to our writing. The trick is to spot and declare the
baggage up front and then to use every trick in the book to try to
keep it in mind as we progress, trying to counter its influence
wherever possible.

Indeed not. Yes we should declare our ideologies but it is utterly
hopeless to try to "counter its influence", as to do this is to impose
a supposed "objective" position which is an ideological position in
its own right.
Such an objective position is a fantasy. We have baggage but what
would you look like with no baggage at all?

A damn sight better than I do with no clothes at all.

Very amusing! Clearly you have no argument on this matter.

The best we can do is to be flexible enough to think within and offer
interpretation with a range of different ideological positions. A
great example of this is Chris Tilley's book "Material Culture and
Text: The Art of Ambiguity" in which he develops distinct lines of
interpretation: Marxist, phenomenological, structuralist etc. upon the
same set of Scandinavian rock art. By offering fully fledged (rather
than "influence countered") ideological position he builds a thicker
and deeper understanding which is less contradictory than you might
think. You should read it.

Sounds interesting. I could be tempted, if I hadn't already blown my
book allowance for the next three months.

Mills & Boon romances will not advance you.

If you are one of these people that beleive in "objective reality" I
would direct you to several discussions currently underway in
alt.philosophy to have your ideological baggage challenged on this
matter.

I refute it thus. <sound of rock being kicked>. I do, however, have a
preference for correct spelling of "believe" and the correct use of
"who", rather than "that", as a relative pronoun for people.

You are also a pedantic arsehole.

We must always be aware of the huge influence of I. Kant on this area
of philosophy.

My resistance is low. Please forgive me. Is that "I. Kant Believe
It's Not Butter"? Or the chap we usually just refer to as Kant? I
last read Kant's "Kritik der Reiner Vernunft" some thirty-five years
ago,

[Pearls before swine]

so bear with me if I'm unsure how he advances your argument

regarding ideology and archaeology.

Not only are you a pedantic arsehole but ignorant of Kant's massive
influence in just about every academic sphere.

The classic counterexamples are the Usenet romantic nationalism loons,
who cannot read any document or have any thought without having it
distorted through their flag-tinted glasses so that it supports their
own agenda.

One man's distortion is another's reality.

Ding! You have just entered Relativist Anarchyville. Please check
your brain at the cloakroom counter.

Why don't you just take a dump in your perfect objectivist universe
and flush yourself down the pan whilst you do it?

Pete Stretton

Pete Stretton

No. I refuse. Enlighten me as to Kant's relevance to your argument
regarding archaeology and ideology.

Like I said before - it is obvious especially in ontology and
epistemology. If you had paid any attention to the realm of philosophy
of archaeology since c.1986 you would be well aware of his influence.
Kant's influence is massive in most areas of academic life: Prof.
Oliver A. Johnson claims that, "With the possible exception of Plato's
Republic, (Critique of Pure Reason) is the most important
philosophical book ever written". . I don't suppose you have the wit
to read that so why not start with the Micky Mouse version: surf the
net for a few minutes.
I can also suggest Shanks and Tilley ReConstructing Archaeology and
Social Theory and Archaeology (both 1987).
Without Kant there would never have been any phenomenology without
which archeology is reduced to a list of items with no meaning.
Why should I waste time on an ignoramous?
Open a fucking book and enlighten yourself you fucking little dwarf!



J'accuse. It's up to you to make the case. In detail, with page and
line numbers.

After all, you brought the case in the first instance.

I am the defendant.

And your crime is....?


BTW, I am away for the next few days, so you have a few days to muster
your arguments.



Pete Stretton


.

Quantcast