| Entry: | Today, James and I finished drawing the section profiles of the NW and SE quadrants in B. 89. Once finished, we were able to open up another quadrant (NE) in order to free up the annex that was left over from building 76. I was placed inside the annex and my task was to free up the walls of the annex and prepare for taking them off. They should be ready for recording tomorrow morning and taken off tomorrow afternoon if all goes as planned.
What was most interesting about the day, however, was the discussion that was sparked while drawing the section profiles. The discussion was concerning archaeological methodology, recording practices and the place of digital technologies in their midst. While similar discussions often take place within our team (because of the great amount of experimentation with digital technologies), this particular discussion aimed specifically at the very root of the 'technology' debate in archaeology. Should we look at these technologies (such as laser scanning, photogrammetry) as yet another tool (such as a calculator, camera or a tape measure) that increases recording accuracy, preservation and information accessibility? This would mean that these technologies would have to fit, almost seamlessly, within the current framework of archaeological methodology and recording practices.
On the other hand, there are also those who hold that these new technologies require a new, or a heavily reworked, theoretical standpoint and a change in current archaeological methodology. In a way, this would allow these technologies to be used in much more experimental ways (than traditional archaeological recording techniques) and perhaps create new pathways for interpreting the past. As with most dichotomies, our experience with using these technologies, up to this point, has been one that does not conform completely to either opinion. A worthwhile cause would be to find a balance within the debate that works on a practical, as well as a theoretical level.
Such questions are what make our work here at Catalhoyuk very important. We deal with the convergence of these technologies and what might be called 'traditional' archaeological practices on a daily basis. We have begun to understand this interaction on a very practical level and this practical understanding allows us to think about how this convergence affects archaeological theory and our understanding and interpretation of the past. This great intersection of theory and practice is the ideal place to think about and move forward in this debate. |
