sey075

Here is a very short video that describes how I first got into the science of archaeology: George had a database!

In a remarkably bad short paper in the current SAA Archaeological Record , Ian Hodder makes a number of statements that equate to the claim that archaeology is bullshit (Hodder 2018) . “Bullshit” is a term that refers to speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Liars care about the truth and try to hide it; bullshitters don’t care whether their speech is true or false. Harry Frankfurt (1986, 2005) published the major works on bullshit, although antecedents can be found back to Plato and Orwell (1946 (1968)) ; see also Cohen (2002) . Hodder’s first dubious claim is that “the most important public value and function of archaeology is its role in place- and history-making” (p. 43). That is, archaeology is primarily about heritage, identity, and cultural achievement. It is about the present, not the past. Most archaeologists disagree with this. Archaeology is about the past. That is why we carry out excavations, surveys, artifact analyses and dating—to reconstruct and learn ...

Some of the most vivid memories from my undergraduate days at Brandeis University are of my Friday afternoon meetings with George Cowgill. I took classes with George, he supervised my senior honors thesis on Teotihuacan, and I had a part-time job doing computer work for him. This was my first real encounter with research. I fell in love with archaeology, and I was discovering that I might be able to contribute some new knowledge to the field. At those meetings, I would go over what I had been working on with George. He was always positive and encouraging, but also critical. He would acknowledge what I had accomplished, but then show what more needed to be done. He had high expectations, and I wanted to live up to them. I would leave his office full of excitement and drive. I can still picture the experience of running down the hill, toward my dorm, full of ideas. I was euphoric. Research was fun; not just fun, but captivating, intoxicating, wonderful. I was on to something, and I had s...

The public has a lot of interest in archaeology, and new finds and discoveries are often in the news. Sometimes the press reports outlandish, nonsense claims, and sometimes it reports rigorous and important claims. Many archaeologists ignore such press coverage (good and bad), and many of us engage with it. If there are elements of the press that distort archaeology, we may or may not want to deal with this. I often ask myself if it is worth the time and effort to try to correct some misleading claim going around social media and the internet. In a very real sense, this kind of thing can be viewed as separate and apart from the actual process of scientific research. I can do my archaeology just fine without worrying about whether the latest "news" about an ancient monkey god is a pile of baloney or not. But there are other distortions of archaeology that are more insidious and more troubling. These come from well-established, serious institutions whose missions include furthe...

New Tikal LiDAR map I am skeptical about the hype surrounding the recent press release from the National Geographic Society about the new findings of LiDAR survey in the Maya region of northern Guatemala. I have no reason to question the quality of the LiDAR survey, or its potential usefulness for understanding aspects of ancient Maya society in this region. Rather, I question two aspects of the way these new findings have been portrayed, both in the NGS press release and in the journalism that has resulted from the find. (1) This is portrayed as revealing brand-new ideas, when in fact earlier LiDAR work had very similar results; and (2) The work is portrayed as a major scientific discovery, when in fact it is only the first step of a process, the end result of which will be (one hopes) some major scientific discoveries. LiDAR is a relatively new airborne remote sensing technology that permits detailed mapping of the surface of the earth at a detailed scale. It is far superior to earl...

Esther Pasztory I just read a strange and inflammatory paper by Esther Pasztory in the Mexican journal, Anales de Antropología   (Pasztory 2017). Pasztory, a senior art historian and Teotihuacan scholar, raises questions about the scholarship and perhaps the ethics of two other top Teotihuacan scholars, René Millon (deceased) and George Cowgill. I have three main questions about this paper: 1. Did Millon really steal her ideas?  (the answer is, no). 2. Did Cowgill refuse to give her sufficient credit for her insights?  (the answer is, no). 3. Why would a reputable journal publish this paper? (the answer is, I have no idea).   Rene Millon This paper focuses on the notion that the government and society of ancient Teotihuacan were more collective or corporate than most ancient societies. This view has been gaining in popularity recently. Pasztory claims to have invented the idea although the published record casts doubt on her claim. Pasztory’s 1987 book was a major e...