I mean reference the work of Le Blanc and Keely where they are referencing
the philosophers and elucidating an archaeological perspective on
warfare/conflict when considering site formation processes, social
complexity, and human ecology.
;0) - just wanted to clarify
kev
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:21 PM, KEVIN M DONAGHY <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
kevin m. donaghy
graduate student
Temple University
Department of Anthropology
|