Much of the archaeological research undertaken in the USA is compliance driven and the criteria we rely on for assessing the value of sites are those for determining eligibility for listing on the National Register. While we consider all criteria for any archaeological site, Criterion D is the one we invariably invoke. While none of the criteria specifically mention scholarship, scholarship is implied, especially in Criteria C and D.
Criterion D requires that we make a case for the importance of a site in understanding state and local history, history being broadly defined as the past. If we fail to relate a site's unique qualities to the past--because of ill-conceived or ill-constructed arguments, or because we have imposed ideological considerations--then we have failed as scholars, both at the agency end and at the consulting end.
I think Geoff's original post aimed more at the difference between interpretations based in data and data analysis and those 'just-so' stories that seem to derive from theory without benefit of data and analysis. I agree with Ed that definitions are in order. "Just-so" stories aren't necessarily anti-intellectual...just not sure what we should do with them. Certainly anti-intellectual and, frankly, nonsense has been behind public policy in the USA. Archaeology should inform from a solid base of careful data collection and analysis. Much of post-modern (hate that term) thinking has come to that conclusion and questions, instead, the unreflective and privileged position of practitioners of science.
James G. Gibb
Gibb Archaeological Consulting
2554 Carrollton Road
Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403
443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)
www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
On 05/27/15, ian Burrow<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I understand Conrad Bladey's viewpoint, even if I think it is greatly
overstated. Surely the point, however, is to continue to seek ways to
influence the system we have to produce good archaeological outcomes. Full
HPF funding (see my previous post) is one piece of this puzzle. Another
would more sign-on from the professional community to the ethics and
standards of RPA, with its unique disciplinary procedures and definite
emphasis on "intellect".
Ian Burrow, Ph.D. , Registered Professional Archaeologist
Vice President,
Hunter Research Inc.
Historical Resource Consultants
120 West State Street
Trenton, Nj 08608-1185
www.hunterresearch.com
609-695-0122 xtn 102
Fax 609-695-0147
Mobile: 609-462-2363
[log in to unmask]
(Past-President, Register of Professional Archaeologists; Past-President,
American Cultural Resources Association)
**Hunter Research: Over 25 Years of excellence in cultural resource
management**
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of conrad
Bladey
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
sorry you don't agree with my politely put point of view-
censorship-the work of the anti thought professional community-just what
this thread could be about-sorry
-I am an activist-and have no financial stake-
why don't YOU stay on topic?
-----Original Message-----
From: Branstner, Mark C
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 8:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
I had hoped that Conrad had been permanently banned from this list. It that
is not the case, I am very disappointed.
________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of conrad Bladey
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
it's a game to minimally meet gov standards which are worse than minimal and
open to political manipulation
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
I had all kinds of public work in mind, but should have called out public
archaeology. It needs to be taken seriously, but still seems to be an
afterthought in compliance and in research design development. And yes; it
sure as hell is an intellectual undertaking.
James G. Gibb
Gibb Archaeological Consulting
2554 Carrollton Road
Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403
443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)
www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
On 05/26/15, Publicarchaeology2<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Following from what Jim said, those "post-fieldwork activities" often
include the aspects of archaeology we call public and community archaeology
-- those are archaeology too (and ideally they take place prior, during AND
after fieldwork -- though ideal situations are rare).
In any case, the "evidence" and "data" are different, but need to be taken
just as seriously, and evaluated just as critically (and yes,
intellectually).
Carol
*****************************
Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Rice University Secretary, Society for
Historical Archaeology Co-editor, Journal of Community Archaeology and
Heritage
(http://www.maneyonline.com/toc/cah/1/1 )
1638 Branard
Houston, TX 77006
www.publicarchaeology.org
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
I concur wholeheartedly with Ian. Also, I take issue with those for whom
archaeology is all about excavating strata in square holes and then
accurately cataloguing what comes out of the holes. Those are important
parts, but they are parts of a larger enterprise. Few walk away from a field
school with the ability to read and interpret soils and landscapes, or
recognize the unexpected juxtaposition of certain types of artifacts, or
recognize the potential research value of a couple of flakes or ceramic
sherds scattered on the surface. These are all intellectual exercises that
occur at varying levels of abstraction and that often do not follow a simple
linear process. Relating disparate ideas and data, sometimes touching on
work done by others decades ago, often happens in my head so quickly and
intensively it gives me a headache. Fieldwork can, and should, be an
intellectual undertaking. And if it is, so are the preliminaries and the
post-fieldwork activities.
James G. Gibb
Gibb Archaeological Consulting
2554 Carrollton Road
Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403
443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)
www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
On 05/26/15, ian Burrow<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This could be a very wide-ranging and heated discussion!
I first of all take issue with Andrew Sherrat's throw-away generalization,
offered without any real evidence. What, in any case, does he mean by
"anti-intellectual"? If it means not participating in some of the more
verbose, politicized and rarified discussions that the post-processual
mindset(s) generate, then I agree that it could be regarded as
anti-intellectual. However, I feel that post-processualist thought patterns
can be highly anti-intellectual themselves.
I also detect in Sherrat's statement the strand in archaeological thinking
that views "expertise in excavation and typological finesse" merely as
technical (rather than intellectual) competencies and not key elements in
what many of us do in order to study the human past. No amount of
intellectual rigor can compensate for poorly collected data.
Speaking from an American-based CRM archaeology viewpoint I would say the
best practitioners are emphatically not anti-intellectual. Of course a
percentage of CRM work is routine and may not contribute very much to our
understanding of the past. However, well-designed research programs are
regularly being implemented as data-recovery projects all over the U.S.
These require the preparation of well-reasoned, context-based research
designs that are specifically directed at expanding our understanding of the
past. Could some projects benefit from more theoretical input from
institutes of higher learning? Undoubtedly. Is there an effective method of
making this happen systematically? Not in my experience. I recommend Martin
Carver's entertaining book: 'Making Archaeology Happen' as a model of how
this could all work better in practice.
Bottom line: we need to define our terms a bit better, but I say yes, we are
engaged in "sustained inquiry". We are not anti-intellectual as a
profession. When were we?
Ian Burrow, Ph.D. , Registered Professional Archaeologist Vice President,
Hunter Research Inc.
Historical Resource Consultants
120 West State Street
Trenton, Nj 08608-1185
www.hunterresearch.com
609-695-0122 xtn 102
Fax 609-695-0147
Mobile: 609-462-2363
[log in to unmask]
(Past-President, Register of Professional Archaeologists; Past-President,
American Cultural Resources Association)
**Hunter Research: Over 25 Years of excellence in cultural resource
management**
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Davis,
Daniel (KYTC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
I'll say no, but in truth it depends on the person doing the archaeology. I
believe we've moved away from professional pigeon-holing and trait-list
development. Why, I even use statistics! GIS! LiDAR! State-level survey
data! Testable hypotheses!
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff
carver
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?
When discussing the work of David Clarke, this is part of the explanation
Andrew Sherrat offered for the reaction against processualism:
"Even as taught in many universities, it has had a strongly
anti-intellectual streak, emphasizing expertise in excavation and
typological finesse at the expense of sustained inquiry into the development
of human culture and society."
Is this still true? Is there still "a strongly anti-intellectual streak" in
archaeology?
|
