Talk:Archaeological theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

The neutrality of the section on Post-Processualism is questionable since the nature of Post-Processualism in comparison to Processualism is disputed and argued as possibly being invalid, while the section on Processualism is let to stand without argument. Egyptianboatmodel (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as post-processualism existed as a scholarly, as opposed to social, movement it existed as a critique of processualism, so I think the whole post-processualism section would, if done properly, be a counterpoint to Processualism. The bigger problem is that the critique of post-processualism doesn't cite its sources. Alun Salt (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You see my point. The Post-Processualism section as written does not stand as a counterpoint to Processualism and therefore I challenge its neutrality. I argue that instead of simply defining Post-Processualism this section advocates Processualism by attacking Post-Processualism, citations notwithstanding. Egyptianboatmodel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see: processualism appears first in the article, because it's a chronological list. Post-processualism follows as a criticism of processualism, and at this point any casual reader like me might think that it represents the modern consensus. However, there are criticisms of post-processualism, too, so these are mentioned next. The final line of the section is a summing-up of processualism and not a criticism. That all seems perfectly fair. 81.131.1.177 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Would using Bruce Trigger's book as a guild be a good idea?[edit]

I took a look at this page and found a major bleh--way to short for the matter at hand with huge hunks missing. I propose using Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought sections to address some of these problems. I have to warn you Tigger's book is very system theory based


Here is a rough outline of the time periods Trigger uses:

  • Antiquarianism (antiquities collection) ancient times through c1860
Includes beginning of scientific archeology c1800
  • Imperial synthesis c1860-c1880
Deals with the use of racism and nationalism in archaeological interpenetration
  • Cultural-historical (Historical Particularism, National Archeology) c1880-present
National Archeology is still used in many parts of the world
  • Soviet Archeology c1850-c1980
Some ideas used in the 1930s appeared in Western models in the 1950s
  • Functionalism c1840-present
  • Neo-Evolution; c1946-present; New Archaeology c1959-present
Includes Binford's use of system theory the model use currently in the field.
Includes Intersocial Contact, neo-historism, neo-Marxism, and Contextual archaeology

What does everyone think?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Philosophy of archaeology[edit]

These are essentially synonymous but theory is the more prevalent term by far. PatHadley (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I can appreciate why you might suggest this, but I must object to such a merge as philosophy of archaeology refers to the broad search for theory in archaeology, as well as ethics, epistemology and ontology. Theory, on the other hand, refers to the application of various theories to archaeological problems and as such is a sub category of the philosophy of archaeology. There is an overlap, but I do not think they are the same thing. The conflation between them, I would suggest, is a confusion within the discipline, which may be helped in the long run by the higher level category of philosophy of archaeology. The Philosophy of archaeology was requested by the wiki:philosophy group and is attested to by a small but growing number of writings and therefore I would strongly argue for its retention as a separate entity. Cheers.� Dylanovsky (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)