Come on, Dave & Dave. Up until a few years ago you couldn't get out of Wash
U without reading Taylor. A recently retired professor at the university was
a serious fan of Taylor. None of us grad students escaped Taylor. No matter
who said it first...Binford made it happen. Love those ideotechnic
things.....
John Dendy
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Babson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: quibbling
More the problem that I DID read Taylor, but it was (almost) 20 years
ago that I did so. Obviously, have to go back and re-read these primary
texts!
D. Babson.
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
David L. Browman
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: quibbling
It was actually Phil Phiillips, not Willey, who first said the
archaeology is anthropology, etc.
Taylor in fact, if you read him closely, would not have agreed with that
at all. And I'm not sure that Binford and others would agree that it
was Taylor who set them on their way, that he was their godfather, as Ed
suggests. Taylor by not being afraid to take potshots at the
establishment, certainly set up a model of Binford, but the actual
essence of Taylor is not carried.
Actually this short discussion makes it clear that even among the
middle=aged group, no one reads anything published over 20 years ago. I
hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that all the young guys coming
into archaeology never read anything published more than 20 years ago,
because they think all good scholarship, of course, is only in the last
two decades.
In this case, I see no one reads Taylor anymore either.
Dave Browman
|