OK ...

I really didn't want to chime in on this discussion ... since we have it
about once or twice a year ... but I would like to throw out a few
questions perhaps disguised as comments ... or vice versa.

Now ... when we say "atheoretical" ... we usually mean "objective" or
"scientific." In the case of folks like Noel Hume and Bill Kelso ... and
the historians who think that they "don't have theory" ... the people
consider there to be a "reality" that exists and is "discoverable" in its
original form (and content). And ... there WAS a reality. Unfortunately ...
it can never be "recovered" in the original. This really speaks to the
relationship between a researcher and data. I put forward that we all do
"science" ... some are more explicit than others ... but all "science"
really means is that we are empirical, critical and ... in some ways ...
try to falsify interpretations (although we usually do this by putting
forward our own). I guess what I am trying to say is that we need to really
problematize the relationship between data and researcher ... and this
begins with the formation of the researcher as an individual ... their
personal history is the predominant "theory." I hope we don't have to
rehash the inability of anyone to be truly objective ... that is an old
thread. Hopefully ... we recognize that the best we can do is to locate our
subjectivity and make that apparent as possible (insert 'demystification'
and all the catchwords here).

OK ... now I think the interesting thing is that the paragraph above is
most likely incomprehensible (or unattractive) to a "general public." One
of the points that Dan Mouer raised was the our "objective" colleagues ...
such as Noel Hume ... have produced "important" works ... not so much so
for the data itself (since much of that was destroyed in the process of
"recovery") but for the fact that these people were able to reach beyond
academia and deliver a "product" to the public ... a "product" that was
immensely palatable. Dan Mouer also points out that the approach of these
scholars was similar to many "interpretive" approaches in the present ... I
couldn't agree more. The work of Ruth Tringham ... Ian Hodder ... etc. ...
really does mirror some of this work in its goal of narrative
interpretation. And ... this is a good thing ... we need not do archaeology
to impress only our colleagues.


Now ... it seems ... getting back to the whole "data" paragraph above ...
that how these "interpretive" approaches are different (sometimes) ... and
really what we should be doing ... is making it explicit as possible that
our narrative derives from "an" interpretation of "certain kinds" of data.
I think that the most productive examples of this are when the researcher
includes themselves within the narrative. Even though recent critiques
suggest that this is little more than self-glorification and veiled
autobiography ... our "data" is far too maleable not to present some
possible sources for the interpretation.

Well ... now that you are all screaming about relativism and this
all-interpretations-being-equal crap ... I would like to step in and say
that I don't believe that all interpretations are equal. We work with
"data" ... we work with a material world ... there are constraints (no
matter how much some may wish there were not) on our flights of fancy. We
need to base ourselves in the data first and foremost. When disagreements
occur ... they seldom occur over "data" ... and more often seem to be
epistemological. Our critiques of our own work should make this
epistemology apparent ... and (hate to sound antiquated) Reason should
allow for logical evaluation.

There is an interesting article by Pierre Bourdieu in which he states his
firm belief that the academy is increasingly being taken over by forms of
argumentation and reason borrowed from "politics" ... and he means this in
the most vulgar sense ... political logic really being little logic at all.
This is the exact reverse of what should be going on. (Now ... I like
talkshows as much as the next guy ... but do we really want our discipline
to turn into the Springer Show ... or Oprah). He sees the role of public
intellectual as trying to bring forms of critical argumentation and logic
to the political spheres. We must reverse this relationship.

OK ... the coffee is wearing off ... and most of you all have deleted this
by now ... so I am going to leave it at that ...

Kevin.


At 10:14 AM 10/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>This thread has been one of the better ones on HSTARZCH in a while IMHO!
>Historical Arch'y has to deal with the very powerful "atheoretical"
>school created by some of its important founders. Here in Virginia, at
>least, there is the Ivor Noel Hume school, perfected in a way by Bill
>Kelso. These folks and their students/colleagues have produced some very
>important works in historical archaeology. All of it without a hint of
>"overt" theory, which means, of course, that it is enjoyable reading to
>begin with <G>. I find this school quite in keeping with much that has
>been highly touted as "interpretivism" (including my own approach) in
>recent years. We can't ignore this work, but it sure is wide open for
>some serious critical analysis of its underlying assumptions! Where are
>the PhD candidates when you need them?
>
>D
>