Tuesday 14 October 2008

First Post

Ok I'm new to this blogging thing but decided to give it a go anyway! The real purpose of my blog is to follow my dissertation progress for my final year at university. I'm hoping this will help me gather my thoughts! I wonder how long I can keep up to date with it though..... :-)
Posted by at

12 comments:

Mattbo said...

First post!!! Anyway. Let's see so many topics to cover. What are your views on post-processualist interpretations of archaeology?

14 October 2008 at 11:05
Archaeogirl said...

Oooooh theory!!! I have to say I quite like post-processualism. It gave archaeology different dimensions that it never had before. We wouldn't be where we are not without it! Hodder is a genius :-)

14 October 2008 at 11:12
Rowena said...

not so keen on hodder, i prefer Bourdieu's ideas about society esp as he allows for differences within cultures.

14 October 2008 at 11:21
Unknown said...

right try again, deleted it the first time.....
I dont agree with PP and refleive archaeology. They are majorly flawed and detract from the digging. R-Arch is to expensive on Hodders scale and realy cant work in a commerical framework.If we make decent records ther all is good, if we record what we see and dont interpret it, leave that to the post-ex and record what u SEE. If the records are good then interpretations can all be differnt and be altered accoridng to new information or research.(see Toby Tour Norwich Union Building, i think). Oh and on a less serious note I think what Crazy Rach did to Hodder was good and he had it coming for him, stuffy academics...

14 October 2008 at 11:22
Unknown said...

ps i like the name of this thread creds to SFB (that should be ur name mate). sorry for double post only just noticed..

14 October 2008 at 11:25
Rowena said...

I largely agree with t-unit (never thought id say that). R-arch is just not feasible without the largely undeserved support of large amercain institutions.

however PP IS mostly concerned with the post-ex and not 'at the trowel face'.

14 October 2008 at 11:28
Unknown said...

but should and can u really seperate the two? i dont think so, as post ex is so dependant on excavation and recording techniques

also what about Tillys approach to archaeology, that is to some extent method and theory , both to some extent flawed as he relies soley on landscapre archaeology and is quite possibly high during his research... (kidding) but does his approach really qualify as serious archaeology. Just trying to stimulate some discussion here... having a brake now will come back 2morrow. c yas all soon (hopefully)

14 October 2008 at 11:32
veni vidi wheelbarrow said...

Interpretations do constantly change over time as more information is discovered. However, the prevelant thought processes of communities do also change over time as well.
When Britain was an imperial power then the Romans were pretty much believed to have brought civilisation to Britain and Britain's imperial adventures were seen in that light, and used to justify it of course.
Now, thanks to the post-imperialist age AND due to new archaeological information we have a different view of pre-conquest Britain.

14 October 2008 at 11:33
Niamh said...

i haven't done any theory at uni. i think if all uni's aren't too bothered about teaching theory in even a little detail to all of their archaeology students, is theory really incredably relevant to the general life of actual excavation today? i've done a little bit of digging, but theory's never been mentioned then either. i do agree that if you record well then the problems that theory creates should be overcome because other people are free to interpret your findings in whatever way they want to. you could even deliberatley go through your results and say this is how so-and-so would interpret this, but this is how what's-his-name would do it, and thingy would think this about this et cetera et cetera. what is your dissertation about? how far have you got?

14 October 2008 at 12:14
MissySarah said...

Well to be prefectly blunt about theory. It's completely ridiculous! In the end, we never really will TRULY know for certain the exact things that happened thousands of years ago. Theory is made of archaeologists who make up any old rubbish cause they know they can never be proved wrong!!!

14 October 2008 at 13:02
Mattbo said...

That's a good point an I have to say I agree. theory is largely just a way for people of an age to impose their views on something, giving their ego a good massage in the process.

14 October 2008 at 13:59
Unknown said...

theory is important it gives us a reason to go to the Black Swan on a monday...... oh wait that dont happen no more.
And theory is not necessarily ridiculose, without theory whose to say we would have had the deveoplemnt of the scientific aspect of archaeology. well maybe not in the same direction (a reasonably good one in my humble oppinion), also i gives us good idea of how archaeological interpretations are influenced by our societies... CH to New to PP, also mirrowed in other aspects of science, culture etc.
Persoanlly never found theory overly interseting, but its important as it givesus an oportunity to further develop our field. What theroy is best is pretty much personal opinion, but without theory we would not be where we are in archaeology 2day. Am i repeating myself?

14 October 2008 at 14:06

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)