03-06-2009, 02:16 PM
Christian, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything other than semantics. But I'll fire one more salvo, just for fun.
It seems to me that although my group--and dozens of others--participate in experimental archaeology by the European definition, that doesn't make them archaeologists....
By your analogy:
Perhaps not, but once a person has been trained to perform the basic functions of a lab assistant, once that person has performed two or three hundred titrations, then one might quite reasonably call that person a chemist! And we certainly have both "amateur" chemists and "professional" chemists and even "industrial" chemists. Excluding all amateurs from the terms "archaeologist" and "historian" would, I think, be silly. And even then--and I speak only for my own group--in a group with thirty nine members, I think I have eleven members of the history profession, including a practicing archaeologist, the staff Historian of a major military organization, etc, etc. Again, I suspect or know this to be true of a dozen other groups. Are they not experimental archaeologists? I'd go as far as to posit that they are "professional" experimental archaeologists, while I am an "amateur" experimental archaeologist. Except, of course, that I quite regularly write and give lectures, too...
Chris, with due respect, I think that you want to restrict this title--a title that was invented by Americans for the most scientific of reenactors--to some group of academically trained scientists. Yes?
In sociology and feminism, we call this "appropriation" where a strong word or concept is seized by the dominant element in society and used to the despite of the originators.
I understand from your comments why you think we're wrong. But I don't accept your point of view, and I think I'd like to respectfully end this debate with an agreement to disagree.
BTW, that group whose link you sent look and sound excellent. That's the kind of group that always excites me, although the dwelling on material vice intellectual culture has a profound (and not favorable) effect over time (look at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation sometime..).
It seems to me that although my group--and dozens of others--participate in experimental archaeology by the European definition, that doesn't make them archaeologists....
By your analogy:
Quote:No one would call a Bunsen burner or a test tube a "chemist".
Perhaps not, but once a person has been trained to perform the basic functions of a lab assistant, once that person has performed two or three hundred titrations, then one might quite reasonably call that person a chemist! And we certainly have both "amateur" chemists and "professional" chemists and even "industrial" chemists. Excluding all amateurs from the terms "archaeologist" and "historian" would, I think, be silly. And even then--and I speak only for my own group--in a group with thirty nine members, I think I have eleven members of the history profession, including a practicing archaeologist, the staff Historian of a major military organization, etc, etc. Again, I suspect or know this to be true of a dozen other groups. Are they not experimental archaeologists? I'd go as far as to posit that they are "professional" experimental archaeologists, while I am an "amateur" experimental archaeologist. Except, of course, that I quite regularly write and give lectures, too...
Chris, with due respect, I think that you want to restrict this title--a title that was invented by Americans for the most scientific of reenactors--to some group of academically trained scientists. Yes?
In sociology and feminism, we call this "appropriation" where a strong word or concept is seized by the dominant element in society and used to the despite of the originators.
Quote:Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It denotes acculturation or assimilation, but often connotes a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture.[1][2] It can include the introduction of forms of dress or personal adornment, music and art, religion, language, or social behavior. These elements, once removed from their indigenous cultural contexts, may take on meanings that are significantly divergent from, or merely less nuanced than, those they originally held.
I understand from your comments why you think we're wrong. But I don't accept your point of view, and I think I'd like to respectfully end this debate with an agreement to disagree.
BTW, that group whose link you sent look and sound excellent. That's the kind of group that always excites me, although the dwelling on material vice intellectual culture has a profound (and not favorable) effect over time (look at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation sometime..).
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
