DECONSTRUCTING TYPOLOGIES

Salutations fellow earth stabbers. I begin this post with the glad tidings that I have taken the king's digital shilling and am now running adverts on the site. Google offers anyone who runs a blog the chance to 'monetise' their work by littering it with juicy promotional nuggets - in the hope that the weak minded among you will run out and buy a lorryload of generic viagra and perhaps a lovematch from Thailand too. In the heel of the hunt I stagger away with pockets full of wonga and you have your life 'enriched' with Moshy Seamonkey Teenage Muppet Transformers - or similar. All the adverts they have provided me with are carefully aimed (like consumer Exocets) at archaeologists - such as this one:

Anyway, without further ado, let us proceed with the blog, it's all about typologies today. Surely, as seasoned pros, (see last week's posting,) we are all familiar with that veritable chestnut, the bronze axe typology such as the one shown below -

The question is, do typologies assist in the derring-do, spunky cut and thrust of modern archaeology? Or do they serve only to further blacken the Stygian darkness we all grope and fumble through - what I'm getting at here is . . . Oops! Ding dong! Here comes another advert.

Returning to our subject at hand - typologies. The standard typology is, I feel, (and I am sure many of you would agree,) no more than a pseudo-Darwinian attempt at codifying systems so complicated, the hope of applying a simplistic linear format to them is utterly preposterous. If one takes, for instance, the familiar pottery typology shown below:

Now, if I could just wiggle my typologies to one side while I shoehorn this next advert in.

Do you sit at home wishing you had someone to wash your dishes? Why not try:

Now, to return to my thesis regarding pseudo-Darwianism. To further my point just take a look at the standard 'Ascent of Man' illustration -

If we deconstruct the visual aesthetics of this Darwinian model, clarity rings forth and we notice how tremendously flexible it is, but also how it allows for an overly-generous lateral approach - exempli gratia:

Oh dear, time for another advert, it's making my argument a tad complicated. Well, lie back and think about the money.(See last week's posting.)
And now - are you feeling a bit on the sprightly side? -

Where was I . . . something about Darwinian models was it? Hang on, until I see if I can find a picture of Darwin . . .

No, that's not Darwin, but it's close enough.
Oooh wait, I think I do have a picture of Darwin . . no sorry . . . it's a picture of Conor McDermott upside down. I'll just keep looking . . .
While I'm doing that - have a look at this:

No, no Darwin. Oh yes -another advert. Wonderful. - stay tuned and we'll be back right after this helpful message:

What was this blog about? Adverts or something - My train of thought seems to have become undone. Taken apart. Second World War, with cheese. Thank you nurse.
Good Heavens! My attempts at deconstructing typologies have backfired and the blog has taken it up the jaxie instead!!

So there you have it chums, in summation, look at anything hard enough and long enough and it will disintegrate - particularly if that something is trying to flog you moonshine - and I should know, because I used to be a Roman Catholic. (Gott in Himmel! That last comment has just lost me hits all over Ireland, Italy and the Americas - my advert income has just plumetted through the floor.)


FAREWELL AND IF YOU CAN MAKE ANY SENSE OF THAT PILE OF COBBLERS 'YOU'RE A BETTER MAN THAN I AM GUNGA DIN.'

At this point in my sordid career I feel it is incumbent on me to acknowledge all those lovely boys and girls over at the BAJR forum. Over the past few months I've mined many ideas out of their high horses and their low humour.
Absolutely tip-top totty.
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forum.php
Although they may not thank me for being associated with this smutty blog.