Glenn Beck has, uh, a personal reason for interest in supposedly pre-columbian Hebrew stones. 

I was first introduced to the Glenn Beck program back when he had a local radio show in Tampa many years ago. It wasn't that bad then, and I've caught the show intermittently through the years. It's been a long time, though, since I've heard any of his programs. It seemed like he had come up with more and more bizarre stuff over time, and I really couldn't handle listening to him. I don't know what this is about, but somehow I'm not surprised that he's somehow weaved this into one of his rants. I don't know if I would ever consider Glenn Beck a reporter. I think even he would admit to being a radio/TV personality/entertainer at best. Do you have a link to the show, or know what day it was broadcast?

It aired last night, 8-18.  He was somehow using it as a prop to explain how scientists and the government  cover up history.

Beck is definitely an opinion guy and not a reporter.  His vested interest in pre-columbian "Hebrew" stuff comes from being a devout Mormon religion.  He supposedly also has now been diagnosed with an eye disease and is going blind.

I don't like to watch him as he gets too intense for me.  Does occassionally make some good points, but is definitely a conspiracy person.   Think he comes on everyday just before O'Reilly.

Thankfully I did not see it, but it sounds like his typical drivel.  I have been able to find a few news stories about his statements.  It seems part of his issue was some talk about Manifest Destiny and how for it to work there was a need to look down on Native Americans - something that I would have to agree with and in fact I have taught about that view - and how it played into the moundbuilder myths - in many classes on Native Americans.  However - to then move on to any possible belief that the "stones" might prove a Hebrew connection, and to suggest that scientists are trying to hide history - is more of his usual "opinion with no basis in reality" approach. 

  I try to keep an open mind about most things, but his recent attacks on the idea of social justice efforts as anti-Christian - just showed how out of touch he is with real understanding of what he is talking about.  Lets hope he stays away from "our issues" in the future.

The Hebrews? The ones who took 40 years to go from Egypt to "the promised land," but apparently left no trace, and who probably could have taken boats in a more expedient fashion had they had them, but rather hoofed it on foot, all the way to the New World? Hmmm

I saw the end of another segment today.  I think he was having a week about America's new "manifest destiny" as being the shining city on the hill for the whole world and said something about being on the lincoln memorial soon. 

StarRider is right, its embarrassing just watching him.  I don't know anything about Egyptian history but i searched and didn't see any definitive answer as to them having records but I really didn't feel like reading the site I was at. . .it was huge. There are accounts of the plaques from the egyptians.

Dmack89, StarRider, FireArch, and Dwarmour--careful with the sloppy comments about Near East Archaelology or you will be left looking like Beck and the "Hebrew" stones.  You all are educated and smart enough to know that artifact interpretation in that part of the world is messed up due to traditional reliance on Egyptian chronology. 

This is a current, on-going, nasty debate that has already produced one sure thing; the traditional chronolgy is kaput.  Just how much is what is up for grab right now. With any of the major proposed changes, reinterpretation is going to "discover" all kinds of "new" evidence for a lot of things; including the Exodus, David, Solomon, the Temple, etc..

You all seemed to have missed the Mormon angle and his desperate health crises--even after I pointed it out.

Dmack89, just as I hope Beck will stay away form archaelology, I hope you will stay away from discussing your opinion on social issues on this site.

Marehart, I have to disagree with your statement regarding Dmack89’s post and I see no problem with his discussion. Glenn Beck is a polarizing figure and it is difficult to have an honest conversation regarding his comments without forming an opinion. Dmack89 contextualized his post by stating his biases (albeit with a negative tone) and identified areas in which he agreed and disagreed with Beck. That is an appropriate way to discuss politics on an archaeology bulletin board. I would have had an issue if he had posed as an independent observer and stated his opinion as fact.

Secondly, social commentary is an important aspect of the archaeological dialogue. That is one of the ways we are able to challenge assumptions that frame how we think. This can range from discussions of racialism in archaeology (see the May 2010 issue of The SAA archaeological record) to how terminology affects the questions we attempt to answer (see any number of Alice Kehoe references). Opinions are how these discussions begin. 

Yeah, you can't have archaeology without politics. There's a good book about this, "Archaeology as Political Action" by Randall McGuire.

Santo and WhatamIdoing;

Have to disagree with you two.  Social Justice is a code phrase for a lot of different things--none of which I believe have much to do with archaeology (other than involving people) and should not be a part of a website like this. 

Just the title, Archaeology as Political Action scares the dickens out of me.  This kind of talk/thought will polarize the field even more.  The idea of professionalism is to first absolutely minimalize bias of any kind and then to recognize it so it can be rooted out.  This is the opposite of reveling in it.

You want to be denied passports fellas, just let politics become a central part of the field.

If you want to discuss Beck's politics, go to the Fox News website.  If you want to discuss his ignorance/bias concerning archaelogical issues, this is the place for that.  Please don't mix the two. 

Interesting that you guys comment on Beck, but not on my statements about Egyptian Chronology or the Mormon view of Hebrews in America.  Guess he is earning his big salary from Fox.

Marehart, I think you missed the point of my post. So I will summarize…as per your statement: "I hope you will stay away from discussing your opinion on social issues on this site."  I hope you will remember that others have the right to express opinions relevant to the topic at hand. To clarify, the topic title was "Glenn Beck" not "Passports."

Glenn Beck segment: Native Americans Wrote in Ancient Hebrew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnRN-GOLLI

Marehart: The fact that archaeologist today are still taught to try and minimize bias, rather than recognize their own biases scares me. We all have biases, and they influence how we work on the daily. Archaeology is a VERY soft, social science. It is not chem, it is not physics. Your cultural and political baggage are going to be with you wherever you dig, and in whatever paper you write. To recall another post which I almost commented on, but forgot:

http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/AFW/Message/Topic/8026

334Arch commented on the lack of minority archaeologists. As a minority archaeologist I can say it's the attitude of people like Marehart who scare us away. There is no such thing as a truly objective study or school of thought in this profession, so don't even trip. You can pigeon hole me as just another post-modernist or whatever, but I know what I represent, and that's me, and my people. Just like white archaeologist represent themselves, and their people.

Before yall get too wrapped up in your opinions, you should read this book. It might give some clues as to Beck's religious rants. I doubt if he has read it..lol. Many aspects of Mormonism are based on testimony by the early church leaders. Those words have been rewritten over the years through supposed "divine revelation" to suit modern day political correctness, and possibly to avoid law suits. Most of the modern fundamentalists and polygamists still live by the early beliefs of Mormonism. Just listening to him off and on recently, it seems that he considers himself a modern day prophet. 

http://www.amazon.com/Early-Mormonism-Magic-World-View/dp/1560850892/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282520073&sr=8-1

Marehart - the reason I don't address the specifics of the latest on Egyptian archaeology - is because I have no idea about it and therefore would not deem it my place to weigh in (though I don't see how that would have any relevance to this conversation).  I am well aware of the Mormon claims, the way Native American have been treated - etc. and that's where my comments will stick.

As for this site not being the place for social justice - I would beg to differ with you.  After having been on the AFW in its various forms for the last 10 years (maybe more) I am very well aware that this is a site for discussions by archaeological folks about anything that interests them and may be relevant to their life as field crews.  Social justice (caring for those that have needs) can actually be very important to our community - to struggling field techs, to the communities we work in, to the Native American communities we work with (imagine where they would be if such principles had always been followed and applied to them rather than the official US policies of Removal, Reorganization and Termination. 

 I will agree with you that this is not the place for political or religous rants, which is why I kept my comments on Beck to a minimum - my goal in even mentioning the social justice issue was to illustrate his bias and lack of understanding on many of the topics he discusses.    In particular I used the social justice issue as it is one the has been a major issue recently - as he has been attacking churches and religous leaders on the issue as being "un-chrisitian" - which is laughable as anyone that has actually read the Biblical gospels woud know (whether you are a believer in the divinity aspect or not) that a main thrust of Jesus' teaching was to reach out to and help care for those on the fringes of society, those most in need (he actually talks about money/charity/etc. more than anything else except "the Kingdom" ).  In fact, many of the anciet Hebrew laws have a similar bent (do not glean all from you fields, but leave some behind for the poor to collect; the whold concept of Jubilee - redistribution and return of all property to their original owners every 50th year; the giving of alms is important, etc.).

Now I'm off to read the link that Jennifer posted and see just what he had to say.

Watched the piece - just another example of not really knowing what he is talking about.  When that Smithsonian Report by Powell that he uses was written - it served as the first real systematic, scientifica examination of who the moundbuilders were.  It provided an important change - recognizing that the Indians were the descendants of the moundbuilders, - legitimizing their claims to "ownership" of the Americas and putting a DAMPER on the concept of Manifest Destiny and the pre-exisiting practice of trying to ascribe the mounds to just about anyone else - so that "Americans" could feel less guilty about our treatment of the natives.  If anything  - the report he attempts to use did just the opposite of what he is looking at.

I also liked his description of the second stone as "phonecian" "hebrew" as if they were the same thing!!.  Two very different cultures, both with their own writing systems, but Beck suggests that they were the same??.

(SIGH....)

All you aforementioned, Don't think we will ever come to terms.  I see researcher bias as a subset of ethics. A professional will know their own tendencies and guard against them, while also knowing the potential for bias to raise its ugly head in themselves, counterparts or in entities one must deal with.  I see no profit is reveling (wallowing?) in one's bias.  This is an anathema to me as bias is something to fight against.  How can one claim to have an objective, accurate interpretation if they cling to even a noted slant or perspective. That's why we have such things as Peer Review that is conduceted by academic Peers and not political peers.  Although imperfect, it's way ahead of whatever is in second place.

Discussing the travails of the poor and ways to help them is not without honor.  If "social justice" just referred to this, I would have no complaint.  You can proclaim the worthyness of the phrase "social justice" all you want, but in today's world it is loaded up camouflage for revolution and class warfare--something definitely not in the Gospels.  

The point I am trying to make, but which appears to fall upon deaf ears is that when the profession needs to avoid being polilticized and polarized like the proverbial plague.  Science, even "soft" science, is supposed to strive for objectivity.  When we loose this, we will be just like the Becks of the world--opinionators/propagandists who are shopped and not legitimate scholars.

In a slight defense of Beck as a human being, his illness is tragic and he may be trying to bolster his faith through some apologetic 'rant' on the basis of his religion. This point seems to have been missed --hope you are more discerning in your research.


WhatamIgoing: I hope you are candid enough to present yourself as a Minority Archaeologist on your resume.

 

Well, you may be able to recognize bias in the wording, phrasing, intentions, and what not, but you clearly missed my tongue-in-cheek humor... sorry.

By the way, this is a discussion forum, where we discuss things, whether we agree with them or not (within limits that have long been established, and at the webmaster's discretion).

Cheers.

Hey FireArch;

Got your humor.  You're excused from my comments.  We all bow to the wisdom of the webmaster, mighty TRON.  Agree with StarRider re: arguing from a religious viewpoint. I want facts to speak for themselves and I detest drive-by or snide side comments that are off point.

Again, as far as a lot of Biblical history goes, shrinking the traditional Egyptian chronology 200 + or - years brings it in line with artifact and some apparent written evidence for the major events and cast of characters in the Old Testiment (Notice I did not mention any re-alignment of Mesopotamian or other chronologies.  They stay the same, only the Egyptian Pharoahs and Egyptian sites get moved).

Point of Information: the Egyptians were a proud people much like the Chinese or North Koreans.  It would not be beneath them to omit any event with a negative outcome--supernatural or otherwise.

Like the new stuff on HSN, will be very interesting to see what crops up when a 'settlement' is made on the chronology issue and people feel safe to "re-interpret."

I apologize for the tangential nature of this post, but I do believe it is relevant to the discussion. I thought about starting a new post, but because the comments were made here I thought it was appropriate to respond here. As much as the data are important to the discussion, so is the intellectual framework in which we define the data.

Marehart, to a point, I do agree with you. We do need to perform our work with a defined, repeatable methodology. But bias is unavoidable and rampant in archaeology; it does not mean that it is bad. Our personal history, education, experiences, and choices define our research interests. For example, archaeology is an overwhelmingly male dominated field.  In gender studies, males are vastly under represented. The choice to study gender is a bias, it does not mean that one researcher is right and the other is wrong.

To paraphrase an old adage, give the same collection to five different archaeologists and you will get five different results. The language used in defining concepts is filled with bias. When I do a lithic analysis I start with definitions that are explicitly descriptive. Others prefer functional definitions. When I perform the analysis the interpretation is left to the end, while others may define function on an artifact-by-artifact basis. These two approaches will undoubtedly produce different results. Neither is right or wrong, but both are framed by research choices. One person’s “wallowing in bias” is another’s “contextualizing perspective.”

Moreover, as much as we would all like to deny it, archaeology, anthropology, science, and academics in general are politicized. Much funding comes from the government and research that coincides with the government’s agenda gets funded. Even more politically, we study the ancestors of political and social groups, many of whom do not want or even need us there. For instance, Lakota oral tradition tells us that the Lakota people were always living in the Great Plains. The archaeological record, as currently understood, disagrees and states that the Lakota arrived more recently. I do not mean to speak for a Lakota person or the Lakota in general, but it is my understanding that it is extremely offensive that archaeologists, without asking, redefined their past from a western perspective…politics and archaeology in action.

Even the word “study” may offend people. It implies that the educational process is one sided. All of the participants have an active role in research. I personally try to frame my professional career in learning, an equal interaction where all participants are on a similar footing and have something to offer.  Rather than studying people, from a learning perspective I believe that I am able to have a more rigorous and fruitful experience.

Once again, I apologize for my long-winded diatribe, and the departure from Glenn Beck’s interpretation of the past.

It's ok to veer off-topic within reason. We have a long tradition of doing so on archaeologyfieldwork.com. ;>  Discussions are certainly welcome and encouraged as long as a healthy level of respect is maintained for others on the website.

Tron Jennifer

Santo is on point.

Marehart: your comment confuses me, are you being serious? No, I do not state that I am a minority archaeologist on my resumes, if there is a form to fill out with a box I check the appropriate box(es).

WhatamIdoing;

No, I'm not serious.

Would like you to think about the difference between a professional perspective (or bias if you will) and a personal prejudice.  IMO a personal prejudice (or bias to soft pedal it) is something to keep in check as it clouds the vision on an emotional basis.  To mangle an old addage, personal bias is to be overcome.

I would, however, suggest you also think about changing your "handle" if you put it on your resume.  You humility is commendable, but it may feed into the personal bias that some people have about such wording--LOL.

the term social justice has been mentioned here.  please note that Beck has been attacking social justice ideas this year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcrM4HQQyg

Thanks to everyone for great discussion - most of the points I was concerned about have been hit by others.  But on Mareharts comment that the Gospel is not about revolution and class "warfare" (perhaps struggle is a better word) -.... umm yes it is, that is what it is all about!!.  - not meaning this to be a religous post, but rather one that looks at the Gospel in a historic light - one that is important for considering it from an archaeological viewpoint (though to be completelty forthcoming, I am also studying for another advanced degree in theology) - Jesus lived in a community subjugated by Rome, where "his people" were considered in general the lowest economic class.  Yet they were constantly challenging Roman authority and their treatment by those in power (see the historic descriptions in Josephus about revolts, and remember Masada, and the destruction of the Temple by the AD 70s).  More specifically - in the gospel books - Jesus consistently talks about the need for the rich to share what they have with the poor.  Archaeological excavations in Nazareth show it to have been one of the the poorest communities in the country, He often shocks the well off by choosing to heal, work with and (perhaps worst of all) eat with the poor. He was eventually crucified under the direction of the few in his own community (priests) that had any political/economic power because of his actions which were addressing discontent and calling for change to the status quo (revolution - though without violence).  Many passage address these issues for example:-

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)

: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". (Matt 6:19-21)

 "Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. (Matt 13:22-23).

"And He said to them, "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses."(Luke 12:15).

There are many more instances, and plenty of studies, which show that the historical Jesus - the actual man that lived, not what many denominations have turned him into with the trappings of divinity, trinity, etc, which all come after the gospel stories are considered to have taken place - was a person very concerned with the place of his people in the world - economically, politically and socially - and that he called for a major revolution in these areas.  But not wanting this discussion to become a relgion debate - I will say no more on the topic.

Dmack89;  Agree with you comment re: Gospels do preach a revolution.  I should have been more specific and wrote  violent revolution.  This is the difference between the New Testament and the Koran.  Despite the superficial denials, the Koran, like much of the Old Testament, is full of demands for intolerance and violence.
 
One word of advice from an academic perspective....be careful about broad statement concerning the "proof" of what "....denominations have turned him into with the trappings of divinity, trinity, etc."  One can watch too many nut case books or watch too many TV documentaries that are loaded with undeclared BIAS or PREJUDICE (see preceding discussion) concerning history, historiography, and interpretation. 

In other words, a bunch of ignorant bullxxxxxxxx. The History Channel is usually good in it's objectivity, but when it comes to religion, it's something else.  Likewise, such things as the Jesus Seminar are nothing, but off the chart minds getting together to commiserate (unfortunately, these so-called historians publish books). 

Marehart: I'm going to have to disagree. Professional perspectives have their roots in your own personal biases, prejudices, and opinions. Just like the cops where I'm from who will break up an argument between a white college kid and a black local outside of the bar by beating the black guy over the head with a night stick and telling the college kid to "drive safe." Or the archeologists who would rob graves against the wishes of the descendants right outside their homes... heavy handed examples of course, but easier to grasp.

The personal biases you cite are NOT professional perspectives.  They are thuggery.  That has been my point.  Professional means they are learned, principled, constant, and forthright. Not an emotional excuse to hide bad behavior behind.

marehart - I agree with your statement - "That has been my point.  Professional means they are learned, principled, constant, and forthright. Not an emotional excuse to hide bad behavior behind. "

 yet in another post you say "Likewise, such things as the Jesus Seminar are nothing, but off the chart minds getting together to commiserate (unfortunately, these so-called historians publish books). " 

The Jesus Seminar folks do just what you ask of professionals - they look for actual facts, compare the texts not only with each other, but with other documentation, with the archaeology, with historical facts, look at how books were written in the first and second century (writing genera), at the contradictions between the various accounts and trying to understand why they exist, etc.  Unfortunately the response by many to their findings is "emotional" and uninformed - relying more on 2000 years of church dogma and "history" than on really looking at what they suggest and how they achieved their findings.  A few centuries ago they would have burned as heretics -or at least excommunicated - just like so many early scientists were that we today recognize as great minds.  Seems to me others in history have challenged church teachings with some success - even though they were considered heretical in their day - Luther, Calvin, Wesley.  Of these I am most familiar with Wesley and know that he was often stoned, beaten, run out of town and forbidden from preaching in many churches - yet today descendants of his ideas make up a very large part of the community of believers (AME, AME Zion, Wesleyan, Episcopal, Free and United Methodists - just to name a few).

Just something to consider

Yeah, I guess you got me on that one; you get a technical point. 

The people of the Jesus Seminar are degreed people.  Problem is they are so far off the wall in terms scholarship and hermeneutics that their competence is questioned by most academics of all persuasions.  Only stuff like Newsweek or Time seem to accept their opinions as having merit.  

Technically, they are professionals; they just don't seem to use professional techniques.  They also could not get published until they started their "seminar."

You're mixing your metaphores--Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. were theologians not historians. 

To mention these 'seminarian' characters on the same page as someone like Edersheim (who was an historian) would be an insult to legitimate scholarship.

IMhO.

Marehart -

 well there is part of the issue - while some of the Seminar participants are strictly historians - most are actually theologians, relgious scholars, and other related fields. In addition to straight historical research methods - they use anthropological methods and textual analysis (long a standard in any study of "the texts"). These are all very professional techniques and as someone currently attending Seminary - I can tell you that thier worked is currently hotly debated, but most that are open to examining its potential (rather than emotionally holding onto the status quo interpretations) find the work to be of high quality and important to consider.  I have seen many classmates who came in "knowing" that is was all bunk changing their perception as they examine the work with a greater understanding of the methods - and the actual history. 

The same approach is important for archaeology.  We need to be aware that not everything we have learned before is necessarily correct.  That much of our current understandings of the past are based on someone elses interpretation - which was passed on to us as knowledge.  As important as that earlier work was, we need to always be working with a critical mind, ready to look for new interpretations as new evidence is gathered and new ways of understanding come to light - which brings us back to the original posts on this thread - about one person's interpretation of the past and of archaeological scholarship.  Critical consideration of accepted facts is important, but any examination needs to be done without blinders of preconcieved outcomes.

Dmack89;

I don't think we are going to come to a concord on this topic. 


I DO LIKE THE NUMBER OF POSTS AND THE ESPECIALLY THE NUMBER OF READERS WE HAVE GENERATED!  JUST WISH THE LOOKERS WOULD POST AND START NEW THREADS!


I agree with your wording, but in previous notes you seem to define the scholarship of "critical consideration" far more loosely than I do. 

If one wishes to have their preconceived notions as a legitimate part of their research, they should advertise this up front i.e. my earlier comments about listing oneself as a 'minority' archaeologist on a resume.

The Jesus Seminar is really another topic thread.  Suffice it to say I put their work in the same circular bin as that of Von Danikan.  This is not from a religious perspective, but from reading their 'work' critically.  Any group that votes with colored paper is a bit out there.  I won't even go into their sensationalistic historiography.

The fact that they are making radical conclusions of historical nature and have theologians voting on it is indicative of their lack of credibility in understanding the nature of the material with which they are dealing.

Much the same are the operations of the headline hunters in archaeology.  Educated people exhibiting no regard for professional restraint.  P.T. Barnum would be proud.

Good to see some active discusssion coming back to the website.  Keep it up!

On one hand the Glenn Beck thing was funny.  Getting John Wesley Powell's name wrong even though he was supposedly looking right at Powell's notes, referring to "evacuations" instead of "excavations," all the pseudoarchaeology, and the dark references to "mainstream archaeologists" and their knowledge-suppressin' ways--outstanding stuff.  On the other hand, even though I tried to laugh him off, there was always the uneasy thought of his huge not-very-well-informed audience and the impact he has on them. 

 

On the politics of archaeology question, although it is a topic near and dear to my heart, I don't have much to add to what others have already said.  Marehart, I just don't see how it is possible to approach the world without "preconceived notions"--they are what make understanding possible.  As researchers our job is to do everything we can to test our preconceived notions against the data (not as easy as you might think).  You are right in that we should be honest about our preconceptions, but the first step is admitting we have them.

I was gonna let it ride, but what the heck....

My position is that we should strive for objectivity.  This means recognizing our preconceived notions, admitting-disclosing how they might influence our perceptions and stiving diligently to keep them from blinding us. 

Heredity and culture that we are born with/into is why we have professional graduate programs to get us to identify these often hidden biases and learn how to avoid errors in logic they may lead us into.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know someone is going to say, "but they can also provide insite."  This is fine, rare, but fine.  Just annotate what brought about your "eureka" moment.

BTW Beck's audiance is not the only bunch of people who are ignorant of real archaeology.  Just look at what people watch and assume is "truth" at NatGeo! 

And you know what to assume does.

Marehart, I’m curious about some of the language you’ve used in your posts, specifically with one quote, “I want the facts to speak for themselves…” I’ve always learned, even from some ardent processualists, that facts do not speak for themselves. Research is an interpretation of data, which are defined by the research question, posed by the researcher. The active part of research is the person conducting the study, not the facts. This is how I understand the process in anthropology.

While writing my thesis, I had to work hard on reducing the passive voice in my writing. It’s still a work in progress. I took a lot of time to try to understand why the passive voice is inappropriate. What I found was that the passive voice is, technically, grammatically correct. Too much passive voice adds confusion by making the object of the verb the subject of the sentence, often by removing the actor. Anthropologists hate this; they want to know who is doing what. The archaeologist excavated the shovel test.

Interestingly, biologists encourage the passive voice. Biologists prefer to remove themselves from the experiment, providing “objectivity.” The shovel tests were excavated. Its undisputable, the results are the results, no bias introduced by the archaeologist. This is my simple understanding of experimentation in biology. Maybe I’m wrong; I have never read anything regarding the philosophy of science from a biologist’s perspective.

I wonder if there is a cross-disciplinary issue that is feeding into these disagreements. From reading some of your posts, it’s clear you have an interest in bio-archaeology, but do you have a biology background? I don’t mean that in a pointed way, I just find the different perspectives interesting.

Marehart, are you male or female?

I envision a pregnant horse running around with a large set of antlers.

Marehart, it's not clear to me what your position is precisely.  In your last post you hint that objectivity isn't possible (i.e. that it is simply an ideal that we strive towards), but in others you insist it is possible and advocate an approach where we empty our minds (i.e., get rid of our preconceived notions) and let the pure, unmediated world record itself into us ("let the facts speak for themselves").  The first approach simply ignores the problems.  The second approach (technically known as Baconian inductivism, although I have also heard it derided as "grokking the world in its fullness") really isn't a tenable position.  Hasn't been for a long time. 

 

I think one reason you may be getting frustrated with this discussion is that you are starting with a fallacious assumption--that either we are purely objective or we are hopelessly politicized.  That's a false dichotomy, and leads to a follow-on problem of straw man arguments.  It's giving the exchange a rather discombobulated character.

 

To reiterate a pretty standard position, it doesn't matter what drives your research as long as the results of that research are, in the end, measurable against the real world (however defined).  There is plenty of room here for objectivity, as well as a realistic acknowledgment  of subjectivity.  

Lots to write about, so I will appologize for the length up front.

I am touched that DesertWalker and WhatamIdoing have considered my personal being.  Sorry, DesertWalker, I'm married and not available to date. 

Don't quite know what to think about Whatamidoing's vision of me.  I hope he(?) was thinking of the fantastic art of Lascaux, etc. and the powerful images that this horse and the antlered (and horned) animals present.  BTW, I may be older than you young Turks, but there is no truth to any talk that these were self portraits.

Do appreciate the thoughtful comments on this thread.  I think the topics and emotions show that there is much of significant value to discuss.

My main concern is that throughout academia there has been a consistant slide in the twentieth century into sloppy intellectual mediocrity.  Compare papers written in the 19th and 20th or 21st century and you will be shocked at the high level of scholarship presented in the past.  In comparison, research today reads like comic books (graphic novels).  Well, ok, maybe it's not quite that bad, but it's close.  Our purpose should be to convey the find and our interprestion of the social context and not to compete with Elvis for headlines.  The so-called professionals that sensationalize and come close to fraud in their presentations to get attention are selling themselves for funding; which makes them academic XXXXXX.

When I state that we need to strive to minimize the impact and influence of preconceived notions, I am referring to schema that cause intellectual blindness.  An example is assigning an artifact to Cro-Magnon instead of Neanderthal not from context, but from an unassailable bias that HSN could not have never made such an item.

Another example is the mental constipation that keeps some people from accepting early, pre-clovis dates for South American sites due to a North Americanos first or a NDBM (not discovered by me) bias. Itt has to be insulting to our Spanish or Portugeuse speaking peers. We're lucky anyone from S. America speaks to us at all.

What I demand from myself is to apply as rigid an objectivity as I can to data collection to form a sound basis of facts (just the plain vanilla facts). It is THEN that I apply several different theoretical approaches in my INTERPRETATION of the artifacts and their context.  I then clearly state which is my description of the artifact and which is my interpretation of it (Admittedly, my bias is to go with Ochams Razon--i.e. the simplest is usually the best explanation.  Notice I use the word USUALLY to note that I should entertain in all humility the notion that perhaps I may be incorrect and not throw contrary evidence or discourse out automatically).


Unlike the headline hunters who shame the profession and snooker a gullible public, I try to exercise professional restraint in not stating that when I squint, my spearpoint can look like a Celtic cross and that this means Irish tourists sailed east to populated the Americas 200,000 BC.  I would state the more humble (and likely) explanation is that I need a new refrection for my glasses or that the point was poorly made.

Another point I have tried to explore in this thread is tendency to not deal with the facts, but to use ad hominin attacks.  Beck is a case in point.  The guy is apparently suffring from an incurrable eye disease that he knows will eventually blind him; a somewhat upsetting prognosis to anyone.  A discerning behaviorist would see Beck's program and it's bias as an attempt to find the "why me" answer.  He may be trying to bolster his Mormon beliefs that demand he accept that Hebrews came here after the  dispersion of the ten tribes of Israel.  This does not make the man a moron; just not a believable source for history based upon actual archaeology. 

However, if (in the extremely unlikely) event a find was made and accepted as genuine through Peer Review, then I would have to question my own understanding of the peopling of the Americas.  I would not automatically bash and trash anyone who did not defend the status quo (like some of the Clovis first guys).


(Speaking of Peer Review....why hasn't anyone commented on the state of this vital activity?)


Whatamidoing--have a question.  Since you stated that you represent your people as a minority archaeologist....how does this affect your point of reference in interpretation?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that whatever genetic background you come from would not have much relevence to interpreting the context of a pile of carbon found ten feet below the surface of a cave floor; just as mine would not. 

Now, if you grew up in a hunter-gatherer society, you might be able to apply special insight to the situation.

 

This is a MARE:

This is a HART:



Anyway, in an effort to make you understand what I am saying perhaps it may be best if I respond to your query in a manner expected and appropriate for my...um, species (within the paradigm of the 19th century scholarly research you value): "Ooga booga."

Now, now, let's not get testy.  Your "Ooga booga" statement is letting your prejudice (and assumption I am a racist as well as not a minority) show.  This reaction is an example of what I think should be avoided as being unwarranted, sensationalistic and inaccurate.

Your also mixing your metaphores again.  Your comment about 19th century paradigm seems to refer to survival of the fittest with the fittest being those with the gold.  At that time, Euro noble people.  Still goes today; the golden rule is them with the gold makes the rules. 

This is Social Darwinism--emphasis on the social.  Same old 'my blood is better than yours and my power over you proves it.'  This is not scholarship, it's ruthless snobbery with often fatal consequences--see 'Holocaust'.  I said I admire the level of scholarship in the 19th century, not that everything then was perfect.

Since the profession of archaeology was not around then, suggest you read a bit of De Toqueville, Frederick Jackson Turner or Frederick Douglas and note not whether or not you agree with them, but the effort they put into the discussion for their point and the examination they make of alternative perspectives. Compare them to what we see today in professional papers (not newspapers) and what is passed to the public.

I truly am interested in your response; can you please ANSWER THE QUESTION? It is a fair question made without prejudice.



Khodok-- I bet your an existentialist! I like Bacon (especially with eggs).  You're right in that TOTAL objectivity is impossible.  That doesn't mean it cannot be the goal; "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” (Browning).

Your reasoning about my attitude being one of frustration is faulty.  Education is a challenge, not a frustration. If all those who posted in this thread were candid, we would have to say we like a good professional, verbal fight!  Your deduction seems to be based upon an assumption that I speak of a perfect objectivity; something I HAVE NEVER SAID.  Maybe it's too psycho, but are you '...protesting a bit too much????'  (just kidding). 

My thesis is to just strive for objectivity in data collection and usage;  use your personal perspective in the interpretation, but note what your perspective is.  If you are a racial supremacist and out prove that HSN did not share genes with HSS (us), then say so at the start.  If it's pure prejudice, say so and don't pass it off or justify it with a bunch of psycho babel either.  If it's due to your training, experience, etc.  be forthright and state this and back up your position with actual artifact type evidence. 

Do not convince yourself that yours is the only possible position from the evidence and have the professional humility and respect to know you just might not have the answer down totally correct.

Ouch, too much verbage.

Marehart,

 

Your statement: “Now, if you grew up in a hunter-gatherer society, you might be able to apply special insight to the situation,” shows a subjective bias towards Clovis culture. This states that subsistence strategy is the defining characteristic of the Clovis people and that any traditional cultural knowledge, other than from a hunter-gatherer background, would provide little insight into the topic. I understand it may have been a joke, but it illustrates a bias towards subsistence.

 

It’s interesting that you bring up the Clovis first debate. It is a perfect example of how false belief in objectivity blinds interpretation. Twenty years ago, it was difficult to publish a pre-Clovis paper, because of the idea that there was no objective way to support the hypothesis. As you state, many Clovis first supporters were blinded by their bias, but their bias was their belief in their version objectivity.

 

I think we may have different ideas for the purpose of the peer review process. By passing the peer review process, it does not mean that the results of a study are “truths” or “facts”, but that qualified researchers acknowledge the work as publishable and the topic is worthy of discussion.

Yes, subsistence is a bias; especially so if you want to live!  You're right in that it could represent a problem if it excluded investigation of other possible living patterns.  Notice I said "might" as in maybe provide some insight.  My point was that my experiential back ground is what matters and that my genetic heritage (race, "my people") alone doesn't contribute when it comes to my ability to interprete a site. 

You're correct about the definition of Peer Review.  How it acts in reality is another matter....
Point was made concerning pre-columbian Hebrews in America;  in Peer Review, when a paper is published it has been screened for a certain level of authenticity and the paper is worthy of discussion at the professional level.  Call me a Lemming, but before I accept such a profound idea, I want to have alot of professional eyes seeing the same evidence and agreeing.  Doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, read, and evaluated on its own merit.

Concerning Pre-Clovis, if there was no objective way to argue the case, then what was there to write about?ha
Let's skip the the debate on relativism ("their version of objectivity")....the bias was due to a pompous lack of objectivity.  The big boys didn't agree so they shamefully put their fingers in the ears and tried to stomp the upstart idea out of existance. These guys had invested their careers with grand statements about Clovis.  They were out to convince the world that they knew it all. This was a power play as much as it was a demonstration of CYA. 

Yes, I know, most Clovis First people are not this way, but let's be candid.  The system was hijacked by those with a vested interest in not upsetting the apple cart.

BTW....I think our postings crossed in the ether.

That is not quite the way I see the history of the Pre-clovis debate.  What I remember are calls for good science to prove the point - rather than accepting claims for which the context and data were dubious, especially in the early years when as I recall, most of the "evidence" had flaws and did not stand up to critical questioning. As in any science, anyone can make a claim of something new, exciting or different - and gather lots of followers who do not need to see details (i.e. von Dainekan, Barry Fell - just in our field).  But science is all about skepticism and having an argument stand up repeated to testing.  That is where a lot of the "anti"-pre clovis thought came from (and still does).  If the arguments are valid, they will stand up to repeated testing - and those that made them originally will be vindicated - no matter how wild the ideas may have seemed when first proposed (a la Gallileo).  But that is "objective" science - show me, prove it, give the details to back it up and convince me - especially when all the pre-existing evidence from multiple fields of inquiry suggest something else.

In the end - pre-clovis may well be proven - but just how far back - and where did they come from - how did they arrive?  Lots of questions to still be asked - but anyone looking to challenge any established ideas needs to be ready to argue as the underdog until they can accumulate sufficient testable (and repeatable) evidence that stands up to close inquiry.

Marehart: Interpretations of the archaeological record is always exclusionary. Researchers decide what is important to study and make interpretations from a fragmented record. Traditional cultural knowledge can have a genetic component, but is mainly gained through education and experience. I think I understand what you are saying, I would just be cautious of dissmissing non peer-reviewed work.

Dmack: I generally agree, but both sides of the debate were framed around negative tones. For me, the important aspect is that the discussion occurred and is continuing.

Here are a couple dated but relevant articles. I find the David Hurst Thomas article interesting because his discussion of Vine Deloria Jr. 

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/thomas.html

Jeez Marehart.  Your examples are all over the place and don't do much to support your argument.  The 19th century as an exemplar of anthropological scholarship!?  No. I don't think so.   As for Douglass, Turner et al, they are curious choices.  Frederick Douglass' writing in particular is a rebuke to your position. 

You are still BTW falling into the fallacy of arguing with false dichotomies.  I realize its intended as a rhetorical extravagance, but it is still a logical fallacy.

Am I an existentialist? (!?)  No...The position I laid out is pretty straightforwardly Popperian.  If you haven't encountered the New Archaeology or Processualism yet in grad school, you're in for a treat, let me tell you ;).   

 

You state "My thesis is to just strive for objectivity in data collection and usage;  use your personal perspective in the interpretation, but note what your perspective is."

Yes, so we gather. The question now is how do you deal with the (well-rehearsed) criticisms of this approach.  You admit you can't keep achieve objectivity, but you feel that "striving"  for it is an adequate substitute.  I don't buy that.  I am not going to fly by flapping my arms hard enough no matter how much I "strive".

 

Your work-arounds to this problem [(1) identifying the schema that cause intellectual blindness and (2) a 17th-century inductive approach  to data collection] won't work.  The second one has already been discussed--no understanding is possible without an interpretive framework.  The problem with the first one is contained in the way you phrased it--how can you identify  the "schema" that cause intellectual blindness?  Do they blind you to everything except themselves?  How do you step outside yourself and pick and choose among your preconceptions ?  All the harder since you have ruled out having someone who is not yourself point them out.  It seems mystical. 

 

BTW identifying your theoretical perspective upfront is pretty standard practice.  That's the research design.  You will find yourself having to take some sort of theoretical perspective to do one.  At every step of the research process you are going to have to say WHY you want to do something (WHY this site? WHY this data? WHY this method?...).  You can't go out and wander around with your only plan being to gather "all the data."

 

I have two (not rhetorical) questions

1. Do you object to this formulation? "It doesn't matter what drives your research as long as the results of that research are, in the end, measurable against the real world (however defined)." 
2. I am not getting the HSN HSS gene thing.  Are you saying that people who don't believe HSS and HSN interbred are racial supremacists?  How is this "objective" and not an ad hominem attack?   

Marehart, have you ever done any readings on the anthropology of science/technology?
I think you should, and apply that to whatever it is you are doing or archaeology in general.
Wish I could be as articulate as some of the others on this board right now, back to the grind.

Am impressed with number of people writing posts to this thread.  We need still more to start new threads by individuals and instead of having to glean from headline news!


sigh (again)

Khodok;

In your post you seem to have misinterpreted my points by about 180 degrees.  Is this a tactic to drive people nuts?  Either that or you merely skimmed my post(s) and your preconceived notions took over.
Life is too short to repeat/reword my post.  I will, despite the snide tone of your words, attempt to answer the questions you raised.

1.  Yes, I would object to this formulation.  Motivation is important.  The profession has a long history of motivation causing problems in veracity and honesty.  Those with strong motivations or incentives should have a vested interest in transparency in documentation of the site, artifacts and removals.  They should also seek to disseminate the raw information and access to the artifacts as widely as possible to professionals.  This last may be called naive in today's funding market, but tough--it's the right thing for the profession.

This "real world (however defined)" stuff is a crock.  That's why ask if you were an existentialist.  Karl Popper would be dismayed at what passes for his philosophy.  Social justice and revolution theology as practiced today are essentially mob rule and an insult to human rights. 


Actually, it's Post-Processualism and I was using it while your were likely still in diapers.  This is what the interpretation is about.  The previous reign of Maitland's outlook was fine for the digging, but without a cutural   how can you give the artifacts meaning?  Would be like speaking with a subject, but without sentences having verbs or a predicate.  It would be like trying to understand the American Civil War by reading the obituaries of the time.


2. This was an attempt at a nonsensical example.  Aryan-white supremecists who want to keep a pure Homo Sapien Sapien lineage is the stuff of Monte Python (see life of Brian).  The thought I tried to convey was that preconceived notions can negatively affect all facets of archaeology (or do you really think a motivated group such as the Aryan Nations could be trusted?) and should be CLEARLY stated at least up front. 

Yeah, this is likely much more rigorously done in grad schools today.  My opinion is that it is severely lacking in journal articles; perhaps too much money or status riding on making sensational finds.


If you had actual read my comments, you would have understood that my use of de Toqueville, Turner, and Douglas  was to give examples of good writing scholarship and not to argue any point. 

Guess I'm in the minority, I believe you cannot be a true scholar if you don't appreciate good scholarship.

BTW, Francis Bacon was a father of the Scientific Method....don't think you want to throw that one out.

Whatamidoing;

You are doing fine. Guard against taking things personal, but keep on commenting on this and other threads!
 
Have done quite a bit of such reading in other disciplines as well as archaeology. 

People are people; the history of archaeology is no different than other disciplines. That is, less somewhat than stellar when it comes to meeting professional ideals.

That's why I am a stickler for protocols, transparency and against sensationalism.

Marehart
I have quoted you in boldface.  I think.  I am having trouble with the formatting

In your post you seem to have misinterpreted my points by about 180 degrees.  Is this a tactic to drive people nuts?  Either that or you merely skimmed my post(s) and your preconceived notions took over.

Life is too short to repeat/reword my post.  I will, despite the snide tone of your words, attempt to answer the questions you raised.

 

Sorry if you think I misinterpreted you, but if it was 180 degrees we'd be in agreement.  I did work off your direct quotes, and simply pointed implications of which I thought you are aware.   You don't need to repeat your position--I think you've done so enough. But certainly say how I have misrepresented it, and also speak to the criticisms, if only to say how they aren't valid .  

 

I realize  it  seems I am bearing down on you about this , but remember you have been pretty avid in your criticism of others here, even to the extent of insisting they alter their behaviour to conform with your take on archaeological theory (or metatheory).   But the thing is I don't think you realise quite how outre your take is.

 

Yes, I would object to this formulation.  Motivation is important.  The profession has a long history of motivation causing problems in veracity and honesty.  Those with strong motivations or incentives should have a vested interest in transparency in documentation of the site, artifacts and removals.  They should also seek to disseminate the raw information and access to the artifacts as widely as possible to professionals.  This last may be called naive in today's funding market, but tough--it's the right thing for the profession.

 

This is all unobjectionable stuff.  Research designs are good, transparency is good, open access is good.  But none of it is a critique of the idea that "it doesn't matter what drives your research as long as the results of that research are, in the end, measurable against the real world (however defined)."  Well, maybe your third sentence, but it's too vague--all actions are motivated. 

 

Look, to be simplistic about it,  either a result is scientifically valid or it isn't.  The "motivations" that drove the research should have no bearing on the results' objective validity.  It's research, not method acting.  Plenty of good research has come from people with "bad" motivations.  You certainly might want to look twice at the research of someone whose motives you suspect (esp. if you suspect dishonesty) , and question their interpretation, but you can't use your judgment of their motives to assess the validity of the objective results.

  

This "real world (however defined)" stuff is a crock.  That's why ask if you were an existentialist.  Karl Popper would be dismayed at what passes for his philosophy.  Social justice and revolution theology as practiced today are essentially mob rule and an insult to human rights. 

 

Actually, it's Post-Processualism and I was using it while your were likely still in diapers.

 

You are falling into the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy (again)--either we are inductivists or it's "mob rule" and "revolution theology" (?!).  Possibly a more moderate tone and less over-the-top examples?

 

I intended "The real world (however defined)" phrasing to cover a range of positions  within philosophy of science without having to get bogged down in any particular one  (since you pretty much reject them all except inductivism).  I am perfectly happy to restate it as "measurable against the real world" (i.e. "testable" in more positivist terms, or "falsifiable" in Popperian terms). 

 

As for this being a postprocessual formulation and not Popperian, you are out to lunch on that. And somehow I doubt you were "using" postprocessualism while I was in diapers ; ) 

 

This also gets us into a rather more technical discussion than the debate calls for, but here goes.

Your overall problem here is you are confusing what Popper (and others) called the context of discovery (basically "where hypotheses come from") and the context of justification (basically "how do we know the hypothesis is true (or not false)").  FYI Popper was interested ONLY in the context of justification (i.e. testability).  If the hypothesis is falsifiable, it doesn't matter where it comes from.  Falsifiability is the measure of science.  From Popper (and others) we get the New Archaeology and then processualism.    

 

Now, the reason it isn't postprocessualism (or at least stereotypical bugaboo postprocessualism, which I'll bet is what we are talking about here) is in the "measurable against the real world (however defined)" clause.  Because in that form of postprocessualism, there isn't a real world at all (no matter how you define it)--there's nothing external to the text, discourse, whatever.  So it just  ain't postprocessualism.

 

[I]Guess I'm in the minority, I believe you cannot be a true scholar if you don't appreciate good scholarship.[/I]

 

Again with the ad hominem attacks?  : (

 

[I]BTW, Francis Bacon was a father of the Scientific Method....don't think you want to throw that one out. [/I]

 

Science advances.  "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". (Newton)

 

 

You seem to have a problem with foundational or principle positions. Interesting how instead of addressing the questions or issues in the manner they were presented, you alter them to suit you.  We all can equivocate and spout philosophical cliches to choke a mammoth, but applying it to the real world is something different.

  You are falling into the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy (again)--either we are inductivists or it's "mob rule" and "revolution theology" (?!).  Possibly a more moderate tone and less over-the-top examples?

I never said this.  This is an example of your bias altering how you view an "artifact."  What I said was that the manner in which the terms social justice and its twin, revolution theology are used in practise are an insult to human rights.
. 
Your doubts about your diapers are your business, but you were the one questioning grad school.

As far as your ad hominem attacks, you seem to have a blind eye to yours. 
"Remove the log in your own eye first" Mathew 7:3-5 (paraphrase).


To Quote more from your post:

Look, to be simplistic about it,  either a result is scientifically valid or it isn't.  The "motivations" that drove the research should have no bearing on the results' objective validity.  It's research, not method acting.  Plenty of good research has come from people with "bad" motivations.  You certainly might want to look twice at the research of someone whose motives you suspect (esp. if you suspect dishonesty) , and question their interpretation, but you can't use your judgment of their motives to assess the validity of the objective results.

Spare me. Most people know that being "scientifically" valid does not mean it's accurate to the context. Do you really think that smart people do not or cannot push results to conform to their opinion?  Omission or grossly minimizing pollen debris can become realistic if one does not believe Neanderthals were capable of burials. The history of Science, yes science, is full of this stuff.  My point about people being people is that not all is on purpose. Is an easy thing to let happen. In any case this is why transparencey is critical.

Padon me, but you seem to contradict yourself several times here (again). 
In previous statements you question the validity of the term 'objective' and now it's unassailable. Are you talking about methods, interpretation or both?   There are always lots of gray areas--that why it's called "Interpretation."  Problems arise when this leaks over into other activities at a site.

We indeed seem to be worlds apart and I doubt we will agree on much except to Post on this website!
Until the next ELE it might be more profitable to comment on interesting topics in threads without the name Glen Beck.  How about thoughts on Monte Verde or does Kow Swamp respresent a remnant Homo Erectus population?

Marehart: you are running in circles.

This post is on fire and so are the people posting.  Here are some wise words;

"Frankie Say Relax"

Also since this post has become so askew from the original topic, here is my two cents:

[T]he paradigm formation may itself be subject to social influences, because research 

biases lead one to collect some types of data rather than others. . . . Contextual biases may emerge from the circumstances in which the research is done. They represent the situating ideas and interpretations of evidence in terms of the perspective the researcher brings to the research. (Stanford, 1998, p. 406) 

Dwarmour;

Well said. 

We did get over 1,000 reads!
Hopefully, this will help get people to start new topics and say something.

Marehart, I won't pursue this since it is obviously upsetting.  I will warn though that archaeologists are a fairly argumentative bunch. You can't take it so personally. 

Oh, Khodok....not for me, but for thee.

quote: "Sorry, DesertWalker, I'm married and not available to date. "

Now, thats funny right there, I don't care who you are..lol. Guess I should have asked what species or breed..lol

May be this thread should be tagged with "theory".