It seems to me that archaeologists use many terms and concepts which are not really defined. This is particularly true in CRM archaeology. In fact, I would say it is rampant in CRM archaeology. I often feel like much of what I read is a bunch of terms and phrases strung together, without a real feel for what those terms actually mean or how they are used.
This problem is due in part to the size and complexity of archaeology. It is a diverse and complex field, ranging from highly scientific or quantitative studies to humanistic endeavors. I am not sure that non-archaeologists realize this.
In graduate school we learn about all of these theoretical views and their history. These ideas all have a genealogy and link together, but they do not link clearly, cleanly or simply. It can be confusing and intimidating. For me, it took a huge amount of reading, often things I did not really understand until later when the theoretical landscape took shape. I am certainly not an expert, but I think I have developed fair grasp of theoretical issues and the practical importance of theory in nearly all aspects of archaeology.
My impression is that there are many archaeologists who have not developed a comfort with theory. This is a problem because deep down they feel that since they don’t understand it, nobody really does and anyone who says they do, is just full of crap. It’s this belief, that theory folks are just blowing smoke, is what lets them string together terms and phrases. To them it just does not matter. Look, all the right words are there, so it must be good.
I mention this because I have a real interest in what I call prehistoric land use. When I started studying graduate level archaeology I had an idea of what I wanted to do, at least in the general sense. I was interested in regional studies, work using data from numerous sites across big areas. I came to this interest because I could not really figure the point of many archaeology reports. Site eligibility usually seemed a guess based on how much stuff there was and most of the reports seemed better at describing data than using it to tell us anything about the past.
Anyway…land use, theory, unclear topics…where was I? Oh, so anyway, I like land use. The reason I like land use is that it is applicable to almost any prehistoric archaeological study. It makes a good contextual framework, is useful for developing research designs and can be linked to almost any CRM project. But what is land use?
Land use appears in the literature quite a bit, but I am not sure I have seen it formally defined. Based on my readings, I would say (in a very simplified and short version) that land use is an upper level research domain. That is, it is comprised of several closely related topics (some of which are often formally defined) such as settlement pattern or mobility studies. I would say if focuses of concepts of site function: either the specific tasks occurring at a site or its place in a systemic context, the distribution of functionally differentiated sites across the landscape and how that distribution changes over time.
Land use lets me apply the idea that archaeology is the study of time, space and form at a scale beyond the site. It is also the framework we need to begin studying a range of other topics such as cultural complexity or resource intensification. An understanding of land use is not absolutely necessary for studying these topics, but it would probably help.
Of course, land use is not theory. My interest in land use as an organizing topic in much of what I do, however, is a direct result of my understanding of theory. That is, theory gives me the frameworks in which to understand archaeology. It directs me to those topics in which I am interested and provides a general structure in which to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment