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?
|
