[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Its existence is simply andgrossly material, and even its chemical and physical composition leads me off intoassociations.It is always referred to something else.Where do I begin? How do I knowwhich lines of flight from the object, which deferrals to take? Only according to a lawbeing told the right chains of relation.The signifier is subverted; instead of the sovereign signifying potsherd there are webs ofdifference.The past is not the origin of meaning, but neither is the archaeologist.Archaeologists write: their excavations, the finds, interpretations.But given that there isno ultimate meaning to such works, no unity of signifier (the archaeological text) and thesignified (the past), what is the origin of meaning of the texts? We do not find the past inthe archaeological work, nor do we find the archaeologist.There are no origins of themeanings we read through archaeological books.There is no sovereign archaeologicalsubject dreaming and communicating meanings behind or beyond the words and imageswe see.The author is dead.Authorship gives way to text; authors as fixed points ofidentity and origin give way to discourse.Discourse consists of sets of practices, values,concepts, powers which enable the production of what are considered as meaning andknowledge, and of texts produced within its structures and law.We are inserted into suchdiscourse.Such post-structuralist argument should not be taken to say that there is nothing thatwe can know, only uncertainty, that there is no past and present, or indeed objects fromthe past which may mean or be known.It does not question truth to replace it with a free-play of signifiers.What is questioned is the hope that the truth in archaeology (howeverfar we may be from it), the truth of the past, is one of presence and being, meaningswithin and belonging to the past and brought to us in the presence of the potsherd.Theseare transcendental notions: the presence and being of a past existing before signification,without necessary relation with anything else, in and for itself, immediate, beyond ourquestion.Instead the truth of the past (a reasonable aim) is material and institutional,social and personal; and archaeologists write in the space between past and present.So objectivity slips off into lines of affiliation and association.Archaeology seems lessto do with the past than contemporary interests.What is to become of archaeology if suchcritique is accepted? What are archaeologists to do? Experiencing the past 26What is a post-structuralist archaeology to be?The critique I have sketched is in no way widely accepted.I am in sympathy with a lot ofit, will try to show how and why, and I have given it support in my other work inarchaeology.But others are suspicious of the critique of the sovereignty of science andare not happy with what it would seem to make of archaeology.12 Trees and gardens 27It may be considered that the questioning of objectivity as guide and aim leads to anincapacity to prefer one interpretation of the past to another.Anything goes andinterpretation may proliferate according to subjective will.Objectivity questioned may betaken to mean subjectivity unleashed.The doubting of objectivity may mean removingthe surest ground for judging what people may make of the past.How are we to decidebetween mainstream academic archaeology and the fancies of those who may believe thatancient monuments lie on lines of earth force and were to guide incoming spacecraft?I have mentioned pluralism as an option implied when interpretation is retated tosocial interest, and archaeological work is located within different social contexts.A pastwhich cannot be reduced to singular meaning and which is caught in expansive webs ofassociation would also seem to permit multiple interpretations of the same archaeologicalreality.This pluralism may be criticized as a decadent voluntarism that it is a luxury ofcomfortable and isolated academics to be able to exercise choice between different pasts,playing with text and meaning.They may have the power and opportunity to do so;others do not and do not want fragmented and indeterminate pasts which have lost theirpower and authority to be relevant.Archaeologists should draw on their authority topresent for people a coherent and authentic past, not dissolve into vapid speculations.A lot of the critique is difficult reading.It is thick with new terminologies, referencesto debates in other fields which can be very specialized, and goes on a great deal abouttheoretical and other matters without getting straight down to what archaeologists do ormay do.Much of the critique has come from just a few university centres and individualswithin them [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.Its existence is simply andgrossly material, and even its chemical and physical composition leads me off intoassociations.It is always referred to something else.Where do I begin? How do I knowwhich lines of flight from the object, which deferrals to take? Only according to a lawbeing told the right chains of relation.The signifier is subverted; instead of the sovereign signifying potsherd there are webs ofdifference.The past is not the origin of meaning, but neither is the archaeologist.Archaeologists write: their excavations, the finds, interpretations.But given that there isno ultimate meaning to such works, no unity of signifier (the archaeological text) and thesignified (the past), what is the origin of meaning of the texts? We do not find the past inthe archaeological work, nor do we find the archaeologist.There are no origins of themeanings we read through archaeological books.There is no sovereign archaeologicalsubject dreaming and communicating meanings behind or beyond the words and imageswe see.The author is dead.Authorship gives way to text; authors as fixed points ofidentity and origin give way to discourse.Discourse consists of sets of practices, values,concepts, powers which enable the production of what are considered as meaning andknowledge, and of texts produced within its structures and law.We are inserted into suchdiscourse.Such post-structuralist argument should not be taken to say that there is nothing thatwe can know, only uncertainty, that there is no past and present, or indeed objects fromthe past which may mean or be known.It does not question truth to replace it with a free-play of signifiers.What is questioned is the hope that the truth in archaeology (howeverfar we may be from it), the truth of the past, is one of presence and being, meaningswithin and belonging to the past and brought to us in the presence of the potsherd.Theseare transcendental notions: the presence and being of a past existing before signification,without necessary relation with anything else, in and for itself, immediate, beyond ourquestion.Instead the truth of the past (a reasonable aim) is material and institutional,social and personal; and archaeologists write in the space between past and present.So objectivity slips off into lines of affiliation and association.Archaeology seems lessto do with the past than contemporary interests.What is to become of archaeology if suchcritique is accepted? What are archaeologists to do? Experiencing the past 26What is a post-structuralist archaeology to be?The critique I have sketched is in no way widely accepted.I am in sympathy with a lot ofit, will try to show how and why, and I have given it support in my other work inarchaeology.But others are suspicious of the critique of the sovereignty of science andare not happy with what it would seem to make of archaeology.12 Trees and gardens 27It may be considered that the questioning of objectivity as guide and aim leads to anincapacity to prefer one interpretation of the past to another.Anything goes andinterpretation may proliferate according to subjective will.Objectivity questioned may betaken to mean subjectivity unleashed.The doubting of objectivity may mean removingthe surest ground for judging what people may make of the past.How are we to decidebetween mainstream academic archaeology and the fancies of those who may believe thatancient monuments lie on lines of earth force and were to guide incoming spacecraft?I have mentioned pluralism as an option implied when interpretation is retated tosocial interest, and archaeological work is located within different social contexts.A pastwhich cannot be reduced to singular meaning and which is caught in expansive webs ofassociation would also seem to permit multiple interpretations of the same archaeologicalreality.This pluralism may be criticized as a decadent voluntarism that it is a luxury ofcomfortable and isolated academics to be able to exercise choice between different pasts,playing with text and meaning.They may have the power and opportunity to do so;others do not and do not want fragmented and indeterminate pasts which have lost theirpower and authority to be relevant.Archaeologists should draw on their authority topresent for people a coherent and authentic past, not dissolve into vapid speculations.A lot of the critique is difficult reading.It is thick with new terminologies, referencesto debates in other fields which can be very specialized, and goes on a great deal abouttheoretical and other matters without getting straight down to what archaeologists do ormay do.Much of the critique has come from just a few university centres and individualswithin them [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]