tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post3251039823023402307..comments2024-03-18T05:08:29.201-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Flannery and Marcus go for the Big PictureMichael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-79582929958456472032013-03-19T17:04:57.123-07:002013-03-19T17:04:57.123-07:00I am not a "processualist archaeologist."...I am not a "processualist archaeologist." Much of Binford and the other processualists was wrong and misguided. As I have tried to make clear in this blog and in some recent papers, I am a comparative historical social scientist who happens to be an archaeologist. I am also a materialist with a scientific epistemology. The closes thing I can offer as "proper published critiques," are these papers: <br /><br />Smith, Michael E. (2011) Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18:167-192.<br />Smith, Michael E. (2011) Why Anthropology is too Narrow an Intellectual Context for Archaeology. Anthropologies 3:(online).<br />Smith, Michael E., Gary M. Feinman, Robert D. Drennan, Timothy Earle and Ian Morris (2012) Archaeology as a Social Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:7617-7621.<br /><br />There are two main reasons why I haven't (and probably won't) publish a "proper critique" of interpretivist/relativist archaeology. First, I am not a good enough thinker in what people call "social theory" (and don't care to take the time do bone up on this), and second, others outside of archaeology have published strong critiques of this kind of scholarship in related fields (sociology, cultural anthropology, philosophy of science, etc.). If you are interested, here are some examples:<br /><br />Boyer, Pascal (2012) From Studious Irrelevancy to Consilient Knowledge: Modes Of Scholarship and Cultural Anthropology. In Creating Consilience: Reconciling Science and the Humanities, edited by E. Slingerland and Mark Collard, pp. 113-129. Oxford University Press, New York.<br /><br />Bunge, Mario (1993) Realism and Antirealism in Social Science. Theory and Decision 35:207-235.<br /><br />Bunge, Mario (1995) In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 775:96-115.<br /><br />Gerring, John (2003) Interpretations of Interpretivism. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 1(2):2-6.<br /><br />Haber, Stephen (1999) Anything Goes: Mexico's "New" Cultural History. Hispanic American Historical Review 79:309-330.<br /><br />Hacking, Ian (1999) The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, Cambridge.<br /><br />Hedström, Peter (2005) Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge University Press, New York.<br /><br />Manicas, Peter T. (2003) The Social Sciences: Who Needs 'em? Futures 35(6):609-619.<br /><br />Roscoe, Paul B. (1995) The Perils of "Positivism" in Cultural Anthropology. American Anthropologist 97:492-504.<br /><br />Tilly, Charles (1994) Softcore Solipsism. Labour / Le Travail 34:259-268.<br /><br />Tilly, Charles (2008) Explaining Social Processes. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.<br /><br />I find myself drifting away from archaeology and anthropology, in part because of continued adherence to nonscientific theoretical perspectives that have been left behind in most of the social sciences. I prefer reading foreward-leaning social science than backward-looking humanities scholarship. The pomos, or interpretivists, or whatever they want to be called, can do their work and talk to one another, and I won't bother them (except maybe in this blog). I just have a different view of the world, and I don't really have time to "seriously engage with" much of that work. If that makes me a bad scholar in some people's opinion, then so be it.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-89645144279171558152013-03-19T16:25:53.087-07:002013-03-19T16:25:53.087-07:00It's your blog and obviously you can say what ...It's your blog and obviously you can say what you like. I'm not a processualist, but that doesn't mean I don't value research produced by archaeologists who have different theoretical views from my own. I think there's room for a diversity of perspectives and a basic collegiality despite differences of opinion.<br /><br />I therefore find this kind of dismissive attitude very tiring and unhelpful.<br /><br />I'd prefer processualists do one of two things.<br /><br />1) Say that they do a different kind of archaeology and are therefore neither interested nor qualified to comment on social theory. In which case, they are happy to let those who want to do that kind of thing get on with it.<br /><br />Or<br /><br />2) Publish proper critiques. There are good examples of this (such as Fleming's 2006 critique of p-p landscape studies in Cambridge Journal). However these are fully referenced and peer-reviewed, not online hit-and-runs.<br /><br />It's a lot easier to attack vague labels rather than seriously engage with others' work, even if that engagement is a critical one. These "culture wars" and the attitudes that drive them are to the detriment of our discipline. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-72922132521808633062013-03-19T15:00:25.394-07:002013-03-19T15:00:25.394-07:00@Anonymous - Guilty as charged. You are absolutely...@Anonymous - Guilty as charged. You are absolutely right. I do tend to use "pomo" as a code for a variety of interpretivist and relativist approaches. I don't use it for everything I dislike (that's too big a category for one term!). I wish I had a better understanding of social theory so that I could be more discerning and more precise on the different types of non-scientific approaches within archaeology, anthropology, and the social sciences.<br /><br />You are right that this is "not a particularly scholarly usage." This is a blog, and I reserve the right to rant and rave in a quasi-scholarly manner. I do apologize for my sometimes cluelessness about interpretivist and relativist approaches, though.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-8484663921811657522013-03-19T14:14:10.555-07:002013-03-19T14:14:10.555-07:00"...the outright rejection of cultural evolut..."...the outright rejection of cultural evolution sounds more like a postmodern position"<br /><br />"well, perhaps not the postmodernists..."<br /><br />"...due, in large part, to the influence of postmodernism, but don't get me started"<br /><br />"If you are a postmodernist..."<br /><br />All from this one blog entry. Are you entirely certain that McGuire is the only one with an obsession? Neither the book in question, or the review were actually about postmodernism. In your blog the term increasingly seems to mean little more than "things I disagree with". Not a particularly scholarly usage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-63594734791831836552013-03-18T14:47:20.995-07:002013-03-18T14:47:20.995-07:00Michael, an explanation for this can be found in h...Michael, an explanation for this can be found in his 2006 article on 'Marx, Childe and Trigger', where McGuire contrasts Childe and Trigger's classical Marxism with different kinds of neo-Marxism. The distinction between these two concerns especially the role of science. Probably this neo-Marxism is more like critical theory than post-modernism, but certainly not so much concerned with comparative approaches.<br /><br />I looked at Service's 1975 book recently, just out of curiosity, and found it quite sophisticated. But his main problem is that he doesn't think cities were important in the initial development of early civilisations. This view appears to have been shared by some archaeologists in the 1970s, but of course now is untenable. In that regard it's Adams' book that will have a more lasting legacy. <br /><br />McGuire, R. H. (2006). Marx, Childe, and Trigger. The archaeology of Bruce Trigger: theoretical empiricism. Williamson, R.F. (ed.) Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press: 61-79.Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-10071848609980198252013-03-18T08:55:50.845-07:002013-03-18T08:55:50.845-07:00@Marcus- Yes, McGuire's critique is certainly ...@Marcus- Yes, McGuire's critique is certainly of the "straw man" variety. The thing that puzzles me is the origins and virulence of his antipathy toward cultural evolution. I would think that a Marxist would acknowledge the value of work like this and try to do it better - more attention to the material foundations off inequality, a more explicit focus on exploitation, etc. But the outright rejection of cultural evolution sounds more like a postmodern position (science is bad, explanation and causality are bad, systematic comparative analysis is bad, etc.)than a Marxist position.<br /><br />As for Service (1975), I haven't looked at it for many years. I recall reading this eagerly as a grad student, when it was published, and thinking "There has GOT to be a better way than this to understand cultural evolution." My criteria were (1) Adams's book, The Evolution of Urban Society (1966), which remains a living influential text for me today; and (2) undergrad courses with George Cowgill.<br /><br />Adams, Robert McC. (1966) The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico. Aldine, Chicago.<br /><br />Service, Elman Rogers (1975) Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. Norton, New York.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-32873464985090126482013-03-18T08:15:25.157-07:002013-03-18T08:15:25.157-07:00The problem with reviews like that of McGuire'...The problem with reviews like that of McGuire's is that they set up straw men to beat. This happened with the work of Service in particular, and I think unfairly. If one looks at his 1975 book, one finds it is far from a simplistic application of band-tribe-chiefdom-state. He also predicted China as the future preeminent power, based on his Law of Evolutionary Potential. <br /><br />If you go back to Service and Sahlins 1960 book, the distinction between general and specific evolution is clearly outlined. Of course, Marcus & Flannery explicitly framed their research in Oaxaca in terms of investigating a specific line of cultural evolution. So, now that they are turning to the general picture, I actually feel that it is not enough like Service's work (in terms out outlining general issues).<br /><br />Not that my line of work follows this, I'm more influenced by Childe and Trigger, but lets give credit where credit is due and keep away from the temptation to set up straw men everywhere.Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-77388497950016242252013-03-17T22:00:07.923-07:002013-03-17T22:00:07.923-07:00Nice review! It looks like a great book--I'll ...Nice review! It looks like a great book--I'll have to check it out when I get access to a library again.Colleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17260925828330801589noreply@blogger.com