tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post4164651513377069816..comments2024-03-18T05:08:29.201-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Teotihuacan fracas: Pasztory claims she was ripped off and ignored by Millon & CowgillMichael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-62052167101292483092017-12-30T08:53:01.129-07:002017-12-30T08:53:01.129-07:00@David - I didn't do a thorough check of the l...@David - I didn't do a thorough check of the literature on this. You are probably correct on Millon (1976). I was motivated to look through works by Millon and Cowgill because of the seriousness of Pasztory's accusation that Millon stole her ideas. I was able to satisfy myself that this is incorrect. This is separate from the question of whether her ideas were given sufficient credit by Millon, Cowgill, and others. Again, I was able to satisfy myself that they did engage seriously with her work in at least one paper each. But perhaps her work and her influence was not given sufficient credit because she is an art historian, or because she is a woman, or perhaps there are other factors not obvious to me. This is why a serious historiographic analysis would be beneficial. <br /><br />I would be fascinated to see analysis of how ideas about Teotihuacan society developed over time, and the interplay between archaeologists and art historians, between Mexican and U.S. scholars, and so on. Also, just how have archaeological and art historical works influenced one another at Teotihuacan? My impression is that scholars of both disciplines fail to take sufficient notice of work in the other discipline, which limits what each discipline can accomplish on its own, and limits our overall understanding of ancient Teotihuacan. I think archaeologists may be more guilty here. Too many of us think we can interpret mural paintings or iconography, but without the formal training in the analysis of images that art historians possess. This leads to incomplete and misleading interpretations, which only sets back the field.<br /><br />As for collective rule at Teo, I'll sit back and see how the evidence and arguments develop. Most people seem to agree with you about changes over time, though.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-9843074947610398822017-12-29T22:37:25.253-07:002017-12-29T22:37:25.253-07:00Hi Mike,
A few points here:
(1) Millon's first...Hi Mike,<br />A few points here:<br />(1) Millon's first reference to a more pluralistic/oligarchic political organization was in his 1976 chapter in Wolf's volume, p. 237. Let me know if your read it differently;<br />(2) Nevertheless, I think it is fine that the journal chose to publish the work, as Pasztory introduced new lines of (more art historical) interpretation, and if she feels her argument wasn't given proper attribution, that should be voiced, if only to be checked against earlier an later argumentation;<br />(3) My own perspective is not that Teo was monolithically collective for 600 or so years, but that the political organization is likely to have oscillated over time, maybe something like imagining Rome's changes: republic, triumvirate, autocratic empire, split courts, etc. If I were to wager, it would be that the political organization was more pluralistic/collective for a majority of those 600 years than it was autocratic, but the organization may have varied over time. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00612430558720540781noreply@blogger.com