The post-processual archaeology is a recent movement which is emphasizing the subjectivity in the archaeological studies. In most of the given cases, the Sri Lankan archaeology regressive in the theoretical approaches while the rest of the world is heading toward novel concepts. First, it was Siran Deraniyagala who incorporated most of the available methods and methodologies into his research with an ecological approach and ideas in new archaeology. However, there was a hiatus to be filled since then.
In a volume include the research details of Galpaya Survey edited by Nimal de Silva and Raj Somadeva, (2008) published by the Post Graduate Institute of Archaeology of University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, the authors are coming up with following suggestions.
'' ....Some archaeologists tend to consider the locations of archaeological importance as real entities that directly manifest ancient human behaviour patterns. Contrary to that, recent discussions carry rather pessimistic ideas while arguing the concept of site as an epistemological construction of archaeologists rather than as an entity that exists in the real world. The reason for taking such a theoretical direction was the highly modified nature of the mound'' (Somadeva et al., 2008, 5)
As they further note,
''... Nothing remained to be interpreted upon the material world of the past, because they themselves were interpretations. In this sense what archaeologists attempt to do is to make interpretations of interpretations while imposing their own present views on the past.'' (ibid, 10)
To the level of the current blogger aware of, the above statements could be one of the first instances the post processulism considered in the Sri Lankan academia. This further explains the direction of the researchers taken, which added some new considerations to the field of archaeology. The conclusions of the whole series of research are not published.
However, the blogger would like to arouse some questions regarding the post-processual archaeological thinking in the current context of SL. ''Is that all archaeologists are naturally post processual, disregarding their approach? Or is it something that they are trying to behave intentionally? Or are they using PPA as a tool? And to what extent the other archaeologists can question the outcome of such interpretations?
These should raise without any personal biases or institutional conflicts. As it was apparent, some of the academics in the field and the associates questioned some of the researches and researchers with preconceived thoughts, without taking such into a proper stage. Impact of reflecting the personal agendas in to the field of archaeology is obtrusive.
Sources
Somadeva, Raj,. Dissanayake, Ranjith and Fernando, Resta, 2008, The Galpaya survey: results of the first field season carried out in the year 2006, pp. 05-155, in The Galpaya survey: report of the first field season, 2006, Occasional papers, No. 1, ed. Nimal de Silva and Raj Somadeva, Post Graduate Institute of Archaeology, University of Kelaniya, Colombo
In a volume include the research details of Galpaya Survey edited by Nimal de Silva and Raj Somadeva, (2008) published by the Post Graduate Institute of Archaeology of University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, the authors are coming up with following suggestions.
'' ....Some archaeologists tend to consider the locations of archaeological importance as real entities that directly manifest ancient human behaviour patterns. Contrary to that, recent discussions carry rather pessimistic ideas while arguing the concept of site as an epistemological construction of archaeologists rather than as an entity that exists in the real world. The reason for taking such a theoretical direction was the highly modified nature of the mound'' (Somadeva et al., 2008, 5)
As they further note,
''... Nothing remained to be interpreted upon the material world of the past, because they themselves were interpretations. In this sense what archaeologists attempt to do is to make interpretations of interpretations while imposing their own present views on the past.'' (ibid, 10)
To the level of the current blogger aware of, the above statements could be one of the first instances the post processulism considered in the Sri Lankan academia. This further explains the direction of the researchers taken, which added some new considerations to the field of archaeology. The conclusions of the whole series of research are not published.
However, the blogger would like to arouse some questions regarding the post-processual archaeological thinking in the current context of SL. ''Is that all archaeologists are naturally post processual, disregarding their approach? Or is it something that they are trying to behave intentionally? Or are they using PPA as a tool? And to what extent the other archaeologists can question the outcome of such interpretations?
These should raise without any personal biases or institutional conflicts. As it was apparent, some of the academics in the field and the associates questioned some of the researches and researchers with preconceived thoughts, without taking such into a proper stage. Impact of reflecting the personal agendas in to the field of archaeology is obtrusive.
Sources
Somadeva, Raj,. Dissanayake, Ranjith and Fernando, Resta, 2008, The Galpaya survey: results of the first field season carried out in the year 2006, pp. 05-155, in The Galpaya survey: report of the first field season, 2006, Occasional papers, No. 1, ed. Nimal de Silva and Raj Somadeva, Post Graduate Institute of Archaeology, University of Kelaniya, Colombo
