In reply to Tim's posting,

 

I agree that we shouldn’t close our eyes to sources of data about the past.
But as the symptom of this modern age we live in is that we have lots of
data and very little understanding, we need theory or interpretation, in
whatever form, to understand what it is we that are studying.

 

However in archaeology theories seem to come and go with bewildering ease
and to a cynical viewer of such things (informed perhaps by reading Foucalt)
they seem to be related to generations of scholars emerging and seeing to
make a name for themselves. In archaeology this seems to involve adopting a
particular theoretical position and flogging it to death at least until some
sort of tenured academic position is achieved and a book and an edited book
(of papers from the same school) has been published. 

 

This passing parade IMHO, is only of interest if it helps us understand the
past. Tim mentioned "structuralism" which is a good case in point - how has
an understanding of structuralism helped us understand the industrial past?
The only example of a structuralist approach in archaeology that has made
any sense is Folk Housing in Middle Virginia which was written by a
historical geographer and is not really industrial archaeology!

 

Marxism is a different proposition and like ice cream comes in a variety of
flavours. Having dabbled in some of the literature (not just the Communist
Manifesto) I am often a bit unclear about what it all adds up to – there are
certainly some great marxist historians such as Christopher Hill, E.B.
Hobsbawm (and EP Thompson) but there is also some awful stuff where data
gets squeezed into this rigorous theoretical construct – the alleged failure
of the British “Middle Class” is a good case in point.

 

Tim’s call for David to offer more satisfying (theoretical) alternatives is
an interesting call. Is poor David expected to invent his own theoretical
approach? Or should he simply adopt another theoretical approach – say the
Annales approach, and see whether we or Tim find it satisfying?

 

Where I think discussions on theory in archaeology seem to loose the point
is that the aim of developing theory is to understand the past in all its
richness not to pursue theory for its own sake. Unless something really
satisfying appears (or until a theoretical approach achieves total
dominance) there will always be a multitude of theoretical approaches and
some which work better than others depending upon the nature of the problem.
The key point in evaluating theoretical constructs is whether one actually
learns more about the past.

 

In my opinion wholesale adoption of “social theory” to cure the unspecified
problems of industrial archaeology is more likely to obscure rather than
illuminate the past. We need to be clear about which theories and what
problems.

 

 

Dr Iain Stuart

JCIS Consultants

 

P.O. Box 2397

Burwood North

 

ph/fx  (02)  97010191

 

[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask]

 

Check out the website at  www.jcis.net.au

 

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/475 - Release Date: 13/10/2006