Relativism, objectivity and the politics of the past
Relativism, objectivity and the politics of the past
复制标题
相对主义、客观性和过去的政治
DOI：
10.1017/s138020380000115x
复制
发表时间：
1998
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
P. Kohl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Kohl
在他们联合撰写的论文《相对主义、客观性和过去的政治》（发表在《考古对话》4.2(1997,164-184)）中，“兰彼得考古研讨会”认为，越来越多的作者将“后过程主义者”描述为相对主义的支持者，被理解为无法评估不同版本的过去或现在。这种将相对主义视为“一切皆有可能”的天真观点（在哲学上被称为判断相对主义）被拒绝了，取而代之的是对不同形式的相对主义和考古学家可以而且确实用来评估过去版本的标准的更细致入微的理解。他们还讨论了在这种背景下认识论、伦理和政治之间的关系，并提出了我们参与考古辩论的方式的暗示。哲学家Diederick Raven和考古学家Ulrich Veit和Ian Hodder在《考古学对话4.2》（1997,185-194）中评论了这篇论文。下面是考古学家菲利普·科尔、莱因哈德·伯恩贝克、苏珊·波洛克和约翰·宾特利夫提供的更多评论。最后，Lampeter Ar
Abstract In their jointly authored paper ‘Relativism, objectivity and the politics of the past’ which was published in Archaeological Dialogues 4.2 (1997, 164–184), the ‘Lampeter Archaeology Workshop’ argued that there has been an increasing tendency for authors to characterise ‘post-processualists’ as proponents of relativism, understood as the inability to evaluate different versions of the past or present. This naive view of relativism as ‘anything goes’ (known philosophically as judgemental relativism) was rejected in favour of a more nuanced understanding of different forms of relativism and the criteria which archaeologists can and do use to evaluate versions of the past. They also discussed the relationships between epistemologies, ethics and politics in this context, and suggested that there are implications for the ways we might engage in archaeological debates. This paper was commented on by the philosopher Diederick Raven and the archaeologists Ulrich Veit and Ian Hodder in Archaeological Dialogues 4.2 (1997, 185–194). Below, more comments are provided by the archaeologists Philip Kohl, Reinhard Bernbeck, Susan Pollock and John Bintliff. Finally, the Lampeter Ar