On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory
On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory
复制标题
论理论考古学的本质和考古理论
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Matthew H. Johnson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matthew H. Johnson
在本文中，我想对当今考古理论的状况做出一些一般性评论。我认为，对“考古理论存在吗？”这个问题的完整回答必须同时是“是”和“不”。是的，显然有一种称为考古学理论的话语，其具体结构如个人和思想流派或多或少地与它有实质性的联系；不，因为以考古学特有的理论术语来思考世界的独特方式的主张被夸大了，大多数甚至最大的考古学家群体都愿意或有意地认同这种方式。特别是，一方面，考古学家公开引用的理论背景和隶属关系之间缺乏对应关系，另一方面，构成他们的工作并影响其接受的更深层次的潜在假设和传统。这些潜在的传统从现场习惯延伸到潜在的范式或话语。我将参考考古学中代理理论和现象学的发展方式来探讨后一点。我的结论提出了考古学理论前进方向的一些要素；令人惊讶的是，其中许多内容在最近几期的《考古对话》中得到了讨论。
In this paper I want to make some general comments on the state of archaeological theory today. I argue that a full answer to the question ‘does archaeological theory exist?’ must be simultaneously ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Yes, there is, demonstrably, a discourse called archaeological theory, with concrete structures such as individuals and schools of thought more or less substantively engaged with it; no, in that the claims for a distinctive way of thinking about the world in theoretical terms specific to archaeology, to which most or even the largest group of archaeologists would willingly or knowingly subscribe, are over-stated. In particular there is a lack of correspondence between theoretical backgrounds and affiliations that are overtly cited by archaeologists, on the one hand, and, on the other, the deeper underlying assumptions and traditions that structure their work and condition its acceptance. These underlying traditions stretch from field habits to underlying paradigms or discourses. I will explore this latter point with reference to the manner in which agency theory and phenomenology have been developed in archaeology. My conclusion suggests some elements of a way forward for archaeological theory; it is striking that many of these elements have been addressed in recent issues of Archaeological dialogues.