Chagnon, Sahlins, and science

Napoleon Chagnon is all over the Internet these days. His memoir, Noble Savages, was recently published, along with a variety of articles and posts about the Darkness-in-El-Dorado affair (in which Chagnon was attacked by journalist Patrick Tierney with outrageous stories of ineptitude and malfeasance in the Amazon). Chagnon was elected to the National Academy of Sciences last year, and last week Marshal Sahlins resigned from that organization, citing two reasons: (1) Chagnon's election; and (2) the involvement of NAS in military research.

I don't want to rehash these things here. For Sahlins' resignation, see Serena Golden's post in Inside Higher Education. For information and lots of anthropological opinions about all this, see recent posts in Savage Minds by Alex Golub and a tweet from David Graeber, each with a bunch of comments. And for a hard-hitting account of the Chagnon-Tierney affair and the role of the American Anthropological Association, see the scholarly analysis by Alice Dreger,  2011,  Darkness's Descent on the American Anthropological Association: A Cautionary Tale. Human Nature 22(3):225-246. The actions of the AAA, as described by Dreger, are part of the reason I resigned from the American Anthropological Association; when they dropped the word "science" from their description of the field of anthropology, it was the last straw for me and I resigned.



Right now, I just want to react to a statement by John Hawks. In his post yesterday on Sahlins and Chagnon (where I got the link to Inside Higher Education), John concludes, "I think it's time to reclaim the name "anthropology" from this earlier generation." Sociobiology and cultural explanations each have their uses, and each also have their limitations. So to trumpet one side and denigrate the other without attempting some form of integration (or at least objective evaluation) is bad science and bad scholarship (another part of the reason I resigned from the AAA).

What about archaeology? Are we exempt from this kind of serious but silly debate? We certainly have our sociobiologists and our cultural explanations partisans. Mostly they talk past one another, and if they do happen to engage, discourse takes the form of "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is too!"  I've commented on a parallel manifestation of the serious but silly debates about the role of drought in the Maya collapse, and archaeological opinions on Jared Diamond's collapse book.

When we allow personal ideological bias rule to our scholarly work, we limit the value of our research to answer real questions and to contribute to broader social and scientific debates. If you have an ideological axe to grind, either leave scholarship and go into politics, or else find ways to achieve a level of scholarly objectivity in your research and writing. (yeah, I know, the postmodernists are going to smirk about how naive I am to even use the word "objectivity." Check out my past posts on epistemology; one can employ objective methods and maintain an overall level of objectivity while admitting that the world is messy and researchers are never free of preconceptions or bias.).

To paraphrase John Hawks, "I think its time to reclaim the name 'archaeology" from past generations." We have lots of data and ideas to contribute to major scholarly and public debates today, but too often our writing and epistemological stance work against any wider relevance.

Did Stephen J. Gould Fudge The Data ?

I will assume that most archaeologists have read some works by the late biologist and public intellectual Stephen J. Gould. His works on history and evolution (Gould 1986, 1987, and 1989) are of fundamental importance for those who (like me) consider archaeology as a historical science. History, archaeology, geology, paleontology, astronomical cosmology, and other historical sciences share a number of conceptual problems concerning how we can understand what happened in the distant past. Reading what Gould says about how these problems have been addressed in geology and paleontology helps archaeologists think about our own methods and data. And while I am on this theme, Darwin's book on worms is also of great use here (Darwin wondered why ancient Roman ruins became buried, and did fieldwork to investigate the actions of worms in the burial of old ruins -- great stuff!!), and Gould's introduction to that book is very good also. Don't forget Toulmin and Goodfield (1965), another important work in this area. And by coincidence, today I am wearing a T-shirt with Darwin's portrait, wearing a Che Guevara-style beret, with the logo, "Viva la evolución!"

Anyway, back to Gould possibly fudging data. In Mismeasure of Man, Gould uses Samuel Morton's measurements of human cranial capacity (in the 19th century) as an example of how a scientist's personal bias can influence his work and skew one's results. Morton wanted to show that Causians had the biggest brains, and Gould claims to show that this desire led to subtle "fudging" of Morton's data in favor of his preconceptions. Even since 1981, this has become a "textbook example" of bias in research. Well, now some anthropologists have gone back and remeasured a bunch of Morton's skulls at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, and re-analyzed Morton's and Gould's data. They concluded that Morton's results were NOT biased or skewed, but that Gould's analyses were biased, with some aspects evidently made up. Wow, this is disheartening -- Stephen Jay Gould has long been one of my intellectual heroes.

The article is:

Lewis, Jason E., David DeGusta, Marc R. Meyer, Janet M. Monge, Alan E. Mann, and Ralph L. Holloway
    2011    The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias. PLOS Biology 6(6):1-6.  .


The University Museum is using the study to generate publicity. There is information on their website, including a short video about Morton and his collection. The video, narrated by Janet Monge, does not have the best discussion of the collection and the new research, however.

For a nice summary of the new article, see John Hawks' blog.

References:

Darwin, Charles
1985    The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms, with Observations on Their Habits. Orig. pub. 1881 ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Gould, Stephen Jay

1981    The Mismeasure of Man. Norton, New York.

1986    Evolution and the Triumph of Homology, or Why History Matters. American Scientist 74:60-69.

1987    Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

1989    Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Norton, New York.

Toulmin, Stephen and June Goodfield
1965    The Discovery of Time. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

“Americanist Archaeology” is slighted in American Anthropologist

I just read an odd article in American Anthropologist by B. Sunday Eiselt called “Americanist Archaeologies: 2008 in Review” (Eiselt 2009). I use the term “odd” because two aspects of the article conflict with the apparent goal of the paper (to review major developments in Americanist archaeology or “archaeologies”). First, the topical coverage, which focuses on the themes of conflict, catastrophe and collaboration, captures only a very small portion of published research in Americanist archaeology. Second, much of the literature reviewed is written by Europeans about areas outside of the Americas. As an Americanist archaeologist I feel that research in this domain has been slighted by the biased coverage in this review article.

The paper is part of a new series in American Anthropologist called “The Year in Review.” These are short articles intended to review “what happened in a particular subfield of anthropology” in 2008 (Editor’s introduction, page 132). This is a worthy addition to the journal, and such papers could be very useful for keeping up with different parts of the discipline of anthropology.

But just what is “Americanist archaeology”? The author does not define this term anywhere in the paper, but she does cite Robert Dunnell’s series of articles that reviewed “Americanist archaeology” for an Old World archaeological audience in the American Journal of Anthropology in the 1980s. In the first of that series, Dunnell defined the scope of Americanist archaeology as “the kind of archaeology that has developed in association with anthropology in North America” (Dunnell 1979:437). In subsequent works by Dunnell and others, the phrase Americanist archaeology was used to refer to theoretical work done by North American anthropological archaeologists (e.g., Dunnell 1986; Lyman and O'Brien 2001, 2004).

In fact, there is a much older and far more widespread usage of the term Americanist archaeology that includes all archaeology done on the American continents. This is part of the field of “Americanist” scholarship. The International Congress of Americanists (“ICA”) was established in 1875 in Nancy, France. Every three years scholars from around the world gather to discuss a variety of research themes focused on the American continents (Comas 1974). The 53^rd ICA was held two weeks ago in Mexico City, with an attendance in the thousands. For most of us who work in Latin America, this is the usage that comes to mind when we hear the phrase Americanist archaeology. (See also the Journal de la Société des Américanistes, published in Paris since 1896). In comparison, Dunnell’s usage is parochial (only theory in North American anthropology departments), and Eiselt’s usage is bizarre.

Eiselt presents tables tallying peer-reviewed articles in 2008 by topic and by approach. Such data can be useful for getting the pulse of research in a field. But since no information is given on the source of the data (which journals were surveyed? what criteria were used to identify “Americanist” papers?), the tables are neither scholarly nor helpful. Then the review launches into the three themes (conflict, catastrophe, and collaboration). Although the material covered under each heading is interesting, these sections reflect poorly the content of the literature in Americanist archaeology. The most biased section is “conflict,” the bulk of which is devoted to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In what sense is this war the focus of research and publishing in Americanist archaeology? There is a big current literature on warfare, imperialism, personal violence, and other themes of conflict in Americanist archaeology of the precontact period, but that literature is not even hinted at in Eiselt’s paper.

Note 1 to this article (p.143) states that “The use of this term [the word referenced with the note is “abroad”] in no way implies that the current research cited in this document is specifically Americanist or may be claimed by U.S. approaches or traditions.” Huh????? Doesn’t the phrase “Americanist archaeologies” in the title mean that the paper reviews Americanist research? I guess note 1 excuses the focus on the Iraq war, but it leaves me puzzled about just what is meant by the term Americanist. I doubt the scholars from all over the world who attended the 53^rd ICA two weeks ago would be happy with the content of this article as a reflection of their collective research activity. And I would guess that Dunnell, Lyman, and O’Brien would not think that their concept of Americanist archaeology is well served either.

One part of me is inclined to ignore these difficulties of coverage and definition. People can write what they want, and if the title and goal of the paper were different I would have few objections. But American Anthropologist has only a limited amount of space for these new review articles, and as an Americanist archaeologist I feel cheated. This paper covers only a tiny portion of current publishing in this field, and much of the content has nothing at all to do with Americanist archaeology as normally construed. Yet the Editor of the journal opines that Eiselt and the other review article authors have “succeeded wonderfully” in chronicling “what happened in a particular subfield of anthropology” in 2008 (Editor’s introduction, page 132). I disagree quite strongly with this judgment, and most of my “Americanist” colleagues would probably concur. Eiselt’s article is NOT about Americanist archaeology.

References:

Comas, Juan

1974 Cien años de Congresos Internacionales de Americanistas: Ensayo histórico-crítico y bibliográfico. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Dunnell, Robert C.

1979 Trends in Current Americanist Archaeology. American Journal of Archaeology 83:437-449.

1986 Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9:149-207.

Eiselt, B. Sunday

2009 Americanist Archaeologies: 2008 in Review. American Anthropologist 111:137-145.

Lyman, R. Lee and Michael J. O'Brien

2001 The Direct Historical Approach, Analogical Reasoning, and Theory in Americanist Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8:303-342.

2004 A History of Normative Theory in Americanist Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11:369-396.

The Maya collapse: When theoretical preconceptions get in the way of understanding

I just read a very nice summary of some of the current debates over the role of droughts in the collapse of Classic Maya civilization:

Pringle, Heather (2009) A New Look at the Mayas' End. Science 324:454-456.

It looks to me like the field may be moving toward a more reasonable explanation of the Maya collapse. Nevertheless, reading the remarks from Pringle's interviews with some of the scholars involved shows that an old problem still has a major effect on the issue. That problem is when one's theoretical perspective (or preconceptions) largely determine one's understanding of a phenomenon, with only tenuous connections to the data. There have long been two polar positions on drought and the Maya collapse:

(1) Many climatologists tend to think that a serious drought will cause a society to collapse. When they identify drought conditions close in time to the Maya collapse, then the issue is resolved. The drought caused the collapse. Period. End of story. Maya society must have been sufficiently fragile to be knocked out by an environmental disater, so why waste time with special pleading. Scholars with this perspective have a rather narrow, deterministic view of causality and social change.

(2) Many archaeologists tend to think that people are creative and can find solutions to environmental and social problems. Perceptions and impacts of the environment are culturally constructed and culturally mediated. The Maya people were were creative and their society was resilient, and thus environmental problems or disasters could never cause a collapse by themselves. Scholars with this perspective often have a narrow, non-materialistic view of causality and social change.

Now almost everyone will immediately claim that the best explanation is somewhere in between these two extreme views, but just where will it lie along the continuum? Read Pringle's report and see what you think. I am not going to take sides or point fingers here (mainly because I don't have time right now; it would be fun to take an skeptical outsider's perspective on the Maya collapse). If you are interested, I list below a few of the relevant publications.

Oh, one more thing. There is now a revisionist claim that the Maya didn't really collapse (e.g., Aimers 2007). Well, what happened to the millions of people? Why were scores of cities abandoned? Why did much of elite culture disappear? To me, this is an absurd claim, analogous to the claim that Rome didn't really collapse (see Ward-Perkins 2006 for the archaeological evidence againts revisionist claims about the lack of a Roman collapse). But I guess if the Maya didn't collapse, then we don't have to worry about the cause of that non-collapse.

So, what does this have to do with archaeological publishing? Although there is some overlap, scholars promoting the two views outlined above tend to publish in different journals and volumes. They tend to write for different audiences, and they generally employ different kinds of data and distinct style of argument. Many writers seem more interested in defending a position than in an open exploration of the issues. For this reason I suspect that advances will come from new kinds of data ("Ultralocal paleoclimate indicators" in Pringle's report), and from young or outside scholars who are not yet firmly entrenched in the debates.


Aimers, James J. (2007) What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:329-377.

Demarest, Arthur A. (2001) Climatic Change and the Classic Maya Collapse: The Return of Catastrophism (review of The Great Maya Droughts by Richardson B. Gill). Latin American Antiquity 12:105-107.

Diamond, Jared (2004) The Maya Collapses. In Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, edited by Jared Diamond. Viking, New York.

Gill, Richardson B. (2000) The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Gill, Richardson B., Paul A. Mayewski, Johan Nyberg, Gerald H. Haug and Larry C. Peterson (2007) Drought and the Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 18:283-302.

Manahan, T. Kam (2004) The Way Things Fall Apart: Social Organization and the Classic Maya Collapse of Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:107-126.

Peterson, Larry C. and Gerald H. Haug (2005) Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization. American Scientist 93:322-329.

Rice, Prudence M. (2007) The Classic Maya 'Collapse' and its Causes. In Gordon R. Willey and American Archaeology: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and William L. Fash, pp. 141-186. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Scarborough, Vernon L. (2007) The Rise and Fall of the Ancient Maya: A Case Study in Poliltical Ecology. In Sustainability or Collapse? An Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, edited by Robert Costanza, Lisa J. Graumlich and Will Steffen, pp. 51-60. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Webster, David (2002) The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Ward-Perkins, Bryan (2006) The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford University Press, New York.