[Stones] scholarship

[Merryn Dineley]

hi Rob,

I did not find the 'squishy women and babies' concept amusing at first - 
but my sense of humour soon returned! Could he just be seeing how far he 
can take these far fetched ideas? As for the rest, I completely agree 
with your analysis.

It really is about time that this kind of insubstantial argument based 
upon no evidence at all was recognised and challenged. I did my M.Phil 
at Manchester at around the time that these ideas of post processualism 
were considered to be relevent and very important. I recall going to a 
conference - it was the European Archaeolgy Association in Bournemouth 
1999 - and the 'Hermeneutics and Phenomenology' session was packed out! 
Other sessions had less than 20 people attending. I think this was at 
the height of the post processualism thing. Is this term still used?

My research into barley, malting and brewing is soundly based upon 
fundamental biological and biochemical processes and so it was not 
considered relevent nor even very interesting within the Department. I 
worked in the Manchester Department as a Teaching Assistant for a couple 
of years but could not cope with the way the undergraduates were being - 
how did you put it? - decieved! Brainwashed with philosophy before 
being given/taught the archaeological and chronological data with which 
to discuss or refute things. Interpretation was purely in the hands of 
the elite.

The story of the Emporer's new clothes describes the whole situation 
quite well - if one or two people stand up and say 'but there is no 
substance to this!' then maybe more will follow?

in hope, Merryn


ewc wrote:
> Hi Merryn
> 
> Thanks for the link to the NG article - I agree it's an interesting 
> piece, for popular consumption. Was amused to find MPP got the 'mad 
> professor slot - rambling about 'squishy babies' or some such.
> 
> My concern here are not about this sort of thing - more that the new 
> Stonehenge project is a prestigious affair and I am concerned at the 
> sort of strands in archaeology that are being elevated by association 
> with it. Lets turn aside from MPP and take a look at some of the others 
> - like Julian Thomas and Christopher Tilley.
> 
> I think it was in 'Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain' 
> where JT advanced three separate matters I had trouble with
> 
> 1) His notion that the move from communal to individual burial at the 
> end of the British Neolithic was evidence for the (psychological) 
> development of individual awareness - writing as if he had substantive 
> evidence that Neolithic man was somehow not self aware - when he has none
> 
> 2) His notion that heightened self awareness is particular to modern 
> Western cultures, and was/(is?) lacking in the orient. This showed a 
> gross ignorance of oriental history imo.
> 3) Brow beating the reader by unexplained reference to the philosopher 
> Heidegger
> 
> The arguments lacked substance, thus seemed to me to represent, not 
> scholarship, but a disturbing desire to undermine the rational objective 
> tradition.
> 
> My posts here are really put up to ask the question - are there others 
> out there disturbed by these developments? To me they seem little better 
> than a form of charlatanry - and to judge from my conversations with 
> modern undergraduates, the deceptions, perpetrated by an academic elite 
> - have been depressingly successful
> 
> To deal briefly with Tilley - here we have a French style, rather than a 
> German, attack upon critical objectivity - advancing the sort of 
> cultural relativism reminiscent of Levi-Strauss. I recall particularly 
> his attempt in the eighties to adapt Quine's radical translation 
> arguments to support a culturally relativist program - another attempt 
> at brow beating - undermined for me by the fact that imo Tilley did not 
> understand the ultimate conclusion of Quine's arguments. These 
> intellectual swindles are of course very complex - but successful 
> swindles are usually complex, are they not?
> 
> best
> 
> rob
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Rob, I came across the National Geographic article that accompanies the
> TV epic Stonehenge Decoded.
> 
> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/stonehenge/alexander-text/1
> 
> Worth a read, perhaps? I am comforted by the fact that NG articles are
> rarely referenced in academic bibliographies. Not so far as I know. This
> is popular archaeology. Isn't it?
> 
> Merryn
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stones mailing list
> Stones at stoneslist.org.uk
> http://www.stoneslist.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/stones
> FAQ available from http://www.stoneslist.org.uk
> If you are experiencing problems with this mailing list please address 
> mail to stones-owner at stoneslist.org.uk
>