[Stones] scholarship

[ewc]

Hi Merryn

I think you have it spot on

<<brainwashed with philosophy>>

It is as if archaeology is secondary matter - a venue that can be used to 
spread a particular kind of propaganda.

Its very heartening to get these several positive responses!

I feel confident a rebellion against this sort of stuff will come. Perhaps 
from youngsters amongst current undergraduates - perhaps from kids as yet 
working on their ABC?

I just hope I am around to see it ........

best

rob

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Merryn Dineley" <merryn at dineley.com>
To: "The Stones Mailing List" <stones at stoneslist.org.uk>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Stones] scholarship


> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>