Re: Archaeology and anthropology
- From: "Digger" <p.dunn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:25:55 GMT
Matt,
I sort of understand where you are coming from but I disagree with you
fundamentally. Archaeology can not be separated from Anthropology. I see it
as a sub-discipline which draws heavily on anthropological theory, (at least
here in Britain it does). If you wish to distinguish between the two, quite
where you draw the line is a moot point.
With regard to your other points, I can think of several colleagues (e.g. Dr
Roger Doonan) who study obsidian in just the way you suggest does NOT
happen, (i.e. where it came from and how it was obtained) and when it comes
to your thoughts on flint industries it seems to me that you just haven't
read enough on the subject. Maybe you could try searching out Dr Miles
Russell's book on neolithic flint mines for starters and maybe that will
start to reform your ideas.
I will make one concession however. I am fully aware that the North American
approach to archaeology is somewhat different to us here in the "old world"
(funny how we in Britain don't seem to be part of your "western hemisphere"
when the meridian that defines the hemispheres goes right through our
capitol). Recent talks given by Alison Wilie brought that home loud and
clear. It also made me realise how vehemently I disagree with her approach
to the philosophical discourse of archaeology!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Archaeology and anthropology
- From: Matt Giwer
- Re: Archaeology and anthropology
- References:
- Archaeology and anthropology
- From: Matt Giwer
- Archaeology and anthropology
- Prev by Date: Re: Human migration and cats.
- Next by Date: Western Australia archaeological finds dated to 35,000 years
- Previous by thread: Archaeology and anthropology
- Next by thread: Re: Archaeology and anthropology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
