Dear Distinguished Faculty,

Thank you for this discourse, as a grad student it can be frustrating on
where to draw the lines, and an approach to historical archival primary
sources that are repeated over and over seem more worthy of a double check
than doing the same with a more solidly, albeit contemporary, accepted
position of various archaeological personae and theoretical approaches, So I
feel more comfortable reading Walter Taylor because it is accessible and
then having a greater knowledge to support a view of Taylor's input/impact
as proposed by Leone or Trigger.  and of course I enjoy discourse with
current Faculty and Mentors on Binford/Hodder etc. since there is firsthand
ethnographic life history experiences - so the official, unofficial, etc. -
it's all good.  Am I a nut because i read A.V. Kidder's reports to get  feel
for method and approaches?  and a better understanding of Taylor's
critiques?  For me the point is i don't want to someday support a statement
i make by saying... "...because so and so says so."  but rather, to be able
to add..."...and the reason that so and so said so is this..."  So i can
know the rationale, but i can be a bit dense  - so redundancy helps.  Now
for a debate on Hobbes, Hume, and Rousseau and the concept of warfare I feel
comfortable referencing Professors Lawrence Keely and Steven Le Blanc.  I
tried Hobbes and Rousseau and they were better than Seconal for insomnia -
;o)  but there are sometimes dilemmas such as:

One case in point is my question - Who said, "Anthropology is the most
humanistic of the sciences, and the most scientific of the humanities." ?  I
have seen referenced to Kroebler and I have seen Eric Wolf use it un-cited
in print.  I am more inclined to accept the Peabody bronze plaque at the
Divinity entrance (Kroebler)., but with all due respect to Eric Wolf, i lost
sleep over that one - even Hobbes didn't help on that one.  anyways, thank
you for your comments, i learn so much on Histarch, so grateful for
important people who are busy making time to comment - so the little people
like me can gain insight and better understanding -

Anyway, i am enjoying this dialog because as a grad student these are the
things i lose sleep over.      and to see distinguished faculty addressing
questions of dissertation committee pedagogy is very helpful, thought
provoking, and reassuring - Thank you and please don't beat me up too bad,
;0)

kevin

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:53 AM, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Well... sort of thought the same of Foucault, really. Especially
> considering how some of the people who used to praise Foucault have now
> jumped on the Heidegger bandwagon.
> Heidegger, of course, is even difficult in German. The English translations
> are supposedly bad...
> I'd just basically be happy if people could document their sites well
> without getting too wrapped up in their phenomenological experience, and if
> they could write clear, objective prose instead of bad poetry.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Not to be trying to revert back to the days of "I only move dirt," but
> doesn't
> it strike you as sad that archaeologists are citing Heidegger and Husserl?
> Now, McTaggart, I can see going to him ....
>



-- 
kevin m. donaghy
graduate student
Temple University
Department of Anthropology