« I Like This, But I Think Something Is Wrong
Main
Liberty College Student Prepares a Terrorist Attack »
May 21, 2007
Meta-meta-archaeology
I've never been a big fan of meta-archaeology or meta much else for that matter. In general, I find that the various positions of those who engage in meta-archaeology fall into the following three categories.
- Trivially correct
- Trivially wrong
- Incomprehensible
Perhaps I am just too stupid to understand what they are trying to tell me. I consider myself a Bayesian of sorts. Therefore, when it comes to any proposition, I eschew absolute certainty one way or the other. Archaeological propositions are no exception. I also think in terms of the probability that a proposition reflects the fact of the matter. I do believe that there is a fact of the matter. But I also believe that the fact of the matter is only approachable in terms of probabilities, or if you prefer likelihoods, (I know they are not exactly the same thing) rather than certainties. In the case of archaeology, these probabilities are usually, but not always, informal rather than mathematically rigorous. I further believe that what the researcher brings to his or her studies in terms of previous training, previous research, articulated and unarticulated pre-suppositions, and just plain prejudices influences the probability equation, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Certainly, assumptions about the relationship between material culture and ethnicity influence the probability equation. So do the very definitions of material culture and ethnicity.
This background brings me to Chris Heard's and Jim West's independent discussions of Terje Oestigaard’s Political Archaeology and Holy Nationalism. Let me first say that I have not read much of Oestigaard's book. What little I did read has not caused me to modify my three-category system. For example, it is a damning but trivial fact that nationalistic considerations often affect the interpretation of archaeological evidence and even the selection of evidence to consider (and not only in Israel). It is trivially wrong to imply that Dever interprets "Ai and Jericho in light of the biblical account of the Israelites’ conquest. (p. 74)" And a lot of Oestigaard's book is plan incomprehensible. At least it is to me.
This is a long introduction to a rather short observation about how Chris Heard "reads" Oestigaard and how Jim West "reads" him.
Chris has not finished his review but I do think several things can be said based on his first five(!) posts. First, Chris has read Oestigaard carefully. Second, Chris is approaching the book analytically. He tells us what he agrees with, what he doesn't agree with and what he doesn't understand. More importantly, he tells us why. Now, one may or may not agree with Chris' analysis or his reasoning but he puts it out there for all to see.
When we turn to Jim's treatment of the Oestigaard, we seem to face proclamations rather than thoughtful review: "impressive," "Oestigaard deconstructs . . .," "Oestigaard plainly shows. . ." There is no attempt at analysis; little or no attempt to justify his statements; no indications of his own presuppositions. He likes Oestigaard and that seems good enough.
I, for one, prefer Chris' approach. It may be a little lengthy, okay, a lot lengthy. It may even be wrong in various particulars but when I read Chris, I have enough information to understand where he is coming from and why he agrees with, disagrees with or doesn't understand Oestigaard. In the case of Jim, I am left with the impression that his judgment is based on some authority, perhaps his own, rather than the evidence from either the book or archaeology or, for that matter, the Hebrew Bible. But that is a problem I have with many of Jim's posts, even those with which I agree.
I like both Jim and Chris and while I haven't met Jim, I know, based on a couple of offline dealings, that he is a very honorable person. I consider both of them friends. There are even times when I may prefer Jim's posts on a given subject to Chris'. This just isn't on of those times.
Posted by Duane Smith at May 21, 2007 8:22 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2114
Comments
Fair enough but I really wasn't writing a review. I was just making observations about what I consider the central issue. But thanks for your kind words anyway. ;-)
Posted by: Jim at May 22, 2007 3:40 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.