Friday, December 29, 2017

Teotihuacan fracas: Pasztory claims she was ripped off and ignored by Millon & Cowgill


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 early statement of this position. Cowgill (but not Millon) also contributed to the growing consensus that Teotihuacan may have had a more collective form of rule, using the term “oligarchy” and comparing Teotihuacan to Rennaissance Venice in several works. In recent years, Linda Manzanilla has been the major proponent of the collective rule position (Froese et al. 2014; Manzanilla 2002, 2006, 2015), and David Carballo has at least one paper in press arguing for collective rule at the site (see also Carballo 2016). This is not by any means a unanimous viewpoint; Saburo Sugiyama is the most vocal proponent of the single-king autocratic model for Teotihuacan (Sugiyama 2005, 2013; Sugiyama and Cabrera Castro 2007). Personally, I am on the fence. I think the collective model is probably valid, but I do not feel that the arguments in its favor have been particularly strong in empirical terms.

Pasztory has a variety of complaints about Millon and Cowgill. I will limit myself to the most egregious.

Complaint #1: Cowgill ignores her ideas and work.
 
George Cowgill
The impetus for this article was the publication of Cowgill’s recent synthesis of research on Teotihuacan (Cowgill 2015), which—she claims—ignores her and does not cite her enough times. She claims that the notion of collective rule was her idea in the first place: “esta idea fuse de mi autoría” (p. 219), or, “Soy la responsible del origen de algunas de las ideas centrales sobre la naturaleza de Teotihuacan” (p. 217). Cowgill discusses the collective rule idea, but does not cite Pasztory as its originator.

If one just reads Pasztory’s paper and looks at Cowgill’s book, one could come to divergent conclusions. First, only two of her works are cited in the bibliography, so perhaps she is correct about being ignored or slighted. But her six entries in the index are only exceeded by a greater number of entries for René Millon and Saburo Sugiyama. That is, Cowgill mentions her by name more than any other scholar except for these two. He clearly does take her seriously.

Let’s look at the history of George Cowgill’s ideas about collective rule at Teotihuacan. I will be brief here; however, it would be useful to write a more scholarly account in the future.

(Cowgill 1983) – In this discussion of government at Teotihuacan, focusing on the architectural compound known as the Ciudadela, Cowgill does not specifically use the terms collective or corporate rule. But he was clearly exploring the concept of non-autocratic rule, talking about how there may have been powerful individuals ruling the state instead of a single ruler. Instead of saying the Sun Pyramid was built by a single ruler, he says it was initiated by “persons.” He talks about the possibility of priest-rulers and uses the concept theocracy. He talks about rule by a variety of officials. To me, it looks like he was exploring the notion of collective rule, but without the benefit of an appropriate label or concept. I must admit that I never liked this paper; I thought the writing was wishy-washy, and at the time was convinced that rulership must have been despotic. But then we all thought like that back in the early 1980s.


1983-1991: Cowgill was publishing methodological papers and some quantitative studies of Teotihuacan during these years. He did not give much attention to Teotihuacan government.

(Cabrera Castro et al. 1991) – Cowgill and his coauthors talk about “a shift to more emphasis on a collective, group-oriented ethos” (p. 89) for Teotihuacan society and government.

(Cowgill 1992) – He cites Pasztory as suggesting a more corporate orientation for Teotihuacan rule. He quotes Millon (Millon 1981) as acknowledging that Teotihuacan rule might have been either “individual or collective” (Cowgill 1992:98).

(Cowgill 1997) – This is a major scholarly review article on “society and state” at Teotihuacan. He includes significant discussion of possibilities for collective rule, citing seven works by Pasztory. This is the place where Cowgill gives Pasztory’s views their most detailed consideration. He cites her newly-published book, which contains the fullest exposition of her views (Pasztory 1997). Although Pasztory does not cite this paper in her recent article, she might not consider the level of coverage of her ideas sufficient because—as in his book—Cowgill does not state explicitly that collective rule was her idea in the first place (Pasztory 2017:219). But, if my interpretation of Cowgill’s 1983 paper is correct, then he was exploring these concepts himself before she put her ideas into print.

So, why did Cowgill give Pasztory’s work such short shrift in his 2015 book? At least half of his mentions are critiques of her ideas about various notions, including the Great Goddess concept. I would suggest that he had explored her ideas previously and found them inadequate for his understanding of Teotihuacan society. I have a similar view, which I will describe below.

Complaint #2: Millon stole her ideas

According to Pasztory (p. 218), Millon read the draft of a chapter, subsequently published as (Pasztory 1988). She does not provide a date, but 1986 or 1987 would sound appropriate. The chapter described her ideas about collective rule, but Millon is said to have expressed vehement opposition to this concept (“se opuso vehementemente a la idea”, p. 218). Then, at the Dumbarton Oaks conference on Teotihuacan in 1988, she was surprised to hear Millon talk about collective rule at Teotihacan, while failing to give her any credit for the idea! (“sin darme ningún crédito por la idea”). Now these events are difficult to reconstruct today without a lot of interviews and piecing together the story. But I don’t think stories like this have much importance. What is important is the published record. What did Millon say in the published version of his paper and in other publications?


(Millon 1981) – I first go back in time to an earlier paper, not cited by Pasztory. In this review article, Millon states in passing that rulership at Teotihuacan could have been either “individual or collective” (p. 212). Millon was clearly thinking about this issue long before reading Pasztory’s unpublished chapter. But he does not develop the idea in this paper. As mentioned above, Cowgill (1992) later cited Millon (1981) as mentioning collective rule.

(Millon 1992) – This paper from the Dumbarton Oaks volume is a lengthy and detailed analysis of several decades of research at Teotihuacan. It is the published version of the conference talk in which Millon reportedly discussed Pasztory’s ideas without citation or credit. Millon devotes five pages (pp. 371-375) to the ideas of Pasztory about Teotihuacan society and rule! He cites six of her publications! This is hardly ignoring her, and far from stealing her ideas. He organizes her ideas into four main claims, analyzes them, and concludes that one claim survives the evidence, two are contradicted by evidence, and one survives, but is better explained in a different way. My interpretation of Millon’s complaints about Pasztory’s work (which I report from my 1990’s annotations in the margin of the article) is that it is insufficiently anthropological and too subjective. (One other relevant factor: As I know from recent experience, speakers are not given a great amount of time at Dumbarton Oaks conferences, and the schedule is followed tightly. One simply does not have time for a lot of scholarly citations in these oral presentations.)

So, did Millon steal the ideas of Pasztory? Hardly. In the 1992 chapter, he discussed the collective rule idea, engaging closely with her publications. But he is not convinced. Sadly, this was René Millon’s final major paper on Teotihuacan. He never articulated an integrated vision of government at Teotihuacan.


What are the main issues here?

(1) Humanities vs. social scientific scholarship. Pasztory seems to think that if she came up with an idea first, anyone who later engages with that idea must cite her as having originated it. Apart from the idea of whether she was indeed the first to propose a collective model for Teotihuacan, her expectations are out of step with the standard model of research and citation in the social sciences. When I write about the Aztec empire as being an indirectly control empire, I don’t feel the need to go back and cite the first person who may have proposed that idea (Ross Hassig, although he used the term “hegemonic empire.”) If I am writing a history of scholarship on the topic, of course I’ll credit Hassig. But if I am just going about my scholarly business today, I don’t need to invoke his name every time I talk about the organization of the empire. Perhaps in the humanities, the person who first articulates a concept needs to be acknowledged all the time. But, in the social sciences, the crucial issue is empirical: What do the data show? Both Millon and Cowgill examined Pasztory’s ideas and evidence carefully, and concluded that they were not needed in order to make their arguments. We lack later papers by Millon, but Cowgill’s trajectory is clear: he talks about her ideas in a 1997 review article, and then later references them only where he feels the need.

(2) Professional pride. Pasztory clearly feels that Millon and Cowgill insulted her professional pride by not giving her ideas enough consideration or citation. But, I think my chronological discussion above show that neither scholar was remiss in discussing her ideas and works. Should Cowgill have cited her more extensively in his book? He doesn’t really deal much with the history of interpretations of Teotihuacan, so I don’t fault him there.

(3) Collective rule at Teotihuacan. I am an agnostic when it comes to the collective rule interpretation of Teotihuacan. It has become something of a bandwagon. As a curmudgeon, I have a strong dislike for bandwagons. I prefer to sit back, consider the evidence, and write critiques of poorly supported popular notions. When I first moved back to Teotihuacan scholarship a couple of years ago, I eagerly went through Pastory’s main book (Pasztory 1997). Given my documented infatuation with Blanton and Fargher’s model (Blanton and Fargher 2008), I wanted to review and synthesize the evidence for collective rule at Teotihuacan. But I was disappointed. The book has some insights, but to me, most of her evidence is subjective and open to multiple interpretations. I didn’t find much that I consider rigorous empirical evidence to support a collective model for Teotihuacan government. I do cite her work, though, because her book remains an important work. I feel that archaeologists have yet to develop sufficiently rigorous methods to identify collective vs. autocratic rule with confidence, using archaeological evidence. I have read works by Manzanilla, Carballo, Blanton, Fargher, Feinman, and others on this issue, but I remain unconvinced. My gut feeling is that the collective model fits Teotihuacan better than the autocratic model. But I have not seen a sufficiently rigorous study, with enough evidence to convince me. (Yes, I know these people are probably frustrated at my curmudgeonly approach here. My mantra is, "Show me the data!").

(4) Why did Anales de Antropología publish this piece? It looks like no one checked Pasztory’s accusations against the published record. It would be useful if someone were to write a history of ideas about Teotihuacan government and society. But unfortunately, much of this paper sounds petty and unprofessional. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal, but was this paper subject to outside review? I have no idea.

REFERENCES:


Blanton, Richard E. and Lane F. Fargher
2008 Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modern States. Springer, New York.

Cabrera Castro, Rubén, Saburo Sugiyama, and George L. Cowgill
1991 The Templo de Quetzalcoatl Project at Teotihuacan: A Preliminary Report. Ancient Mesoamerica 2: 77-92.

Carballo, David M.
2016 Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York.

Cowgill, George L.
1983 Rulership and the Ciudadela: Political Inferences from Teotihuacan Architecture. In Civilization in the Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Richard M. Leventhal and Alan L. Kolata, pp. 313-344. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1992 Toward a Political History of Teotihuacan. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by Arthur A. Demarest and Geoffrey W. Conrad, pp. 87-114. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

1997 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 129-161.

2015 Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Froese, Tom, Carlos Gershenson, and Linda R. Manzanilla
2014 Can Government Be Self-Organized? A Mathematical Model of the Collective Social Organization of Ancient Teotihuacan, Central Mexico. PloS one 9 (10): e109966.

Manzanilla, Linda R.
2002 Gobierno corporativo en Teotihuacan: una revisión del concepto "palacio" aplicado a la gran urbe prehispánica. Anales de Antropología 35: 157-190.

2006 Estados corporativos arcaicos: organizaciones de excepción en escenarios excluyentes. Cuicuilco 13 (36): 13-45.

2015 Cooperation and tensions in multiethnic corporate societies using Teotihuacan, Central Mexico, as a case study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 9210-9215.

Millon, René
1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Archaeology, edited by Jeremy Sabloff, pp. 198-243. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1992 Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond. In Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet C. Berlo, pp. 339-429. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Pasztory, Esther
1988 A Reinterpretation of Teotihuacan and its Mural Painting Tradition. In Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited by Kathleen Berrin, pp. 45-77. Fine Arts Museums, San Francisco.

1997 Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

2017 Nota: Panorama de los estudio sobre Teotihuacan: un corrección historiográfica: Adding dimension to studies on Teotihuacan: A historiogrpahic corection. Anales de Antropología 51: 217-221.

Sugiyama, Saburo
2005 Human Sacrifice, Militarism, and Rulership: The Symbolism of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Cambridge University Press, New York.

2013 Creation and Transformation of Monuments in the Ancient Citiy of Teotihuacan. In Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Social Identity: 2,000 Years of Monumentality in Teotihuacan and Cholula, Mexico, edited by Saburo Sugiyama, Shigeru Kabata, Tomoko Taniguchi, and Etsuko Niwa, pp. 1-10. Aichi Prefectural University, Cultural Symbiosis Research Institute, Aichi.

Sugiyama, Saburo and Rubén Cabrera Castro
2007 The Moon Pyramid Project and the Teotihuacan State Polity. Ancient Mesoamerica 18: 109-125.




Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Does archaeology have value outside of archaeology?

What is the value of archaeology for individuals, institutions, and disciplines beyond archaeology itself? This is the topic of a recent article in The SAA Archaeological Record (Minnis et al. 2017), based on a workshop held at the Amerind Foundation in May 2017. If you have followed this blog at all, you will know this is a topic I am very concerned with. The blog has 43 entries for the keyword "Archaeology and other disciplines", and 17 entries for "Archaeology and the public." I've published a number of papers on this topic, including one I had forgotten about until tonight (see bibliography below). So I was pleased to see this paper and eager to read it. But then I was surprised, or perhaps shocked is a better term, to see that the paper has almost NO consideration of the aspect of the topic that is most important to me: The use of archaeology by scholars in other disciplines to address a variety of historical and social issues.
the Amerind Foundation, one of my favorite places

This paper, authored by a distinguished group of archaeologists, consists largely of two lists (with discussion of the entries).

First: Archaeology can  (pp. 28-29):
  1. Help communities better understand their shared heritage
  2. Feed local or nationalistic pride
  3. Provide corrections, reveal complexities, and yield material evidence unavailable in the written historical record.
  4. Provide methods, techniques and approaches used in a wide variety of non-archaeologal endeavors
  5. Engage K-12 students
  6. Offer a multidisciplinary problem-based approach at the intersection of science and the humanities
  7. Promote heritage tourism
  8. Give decision-makers, planners, and the public a significant deep-time perspective on key issues.

Second, the Constituencies/Audiences/Stakeholders of archaeology are (pp. 292-31):
  • Policy Makers and Implementers
  • Business
  • Educators/Students
  • Practitioners
  • Communities
  • Funders
  • Military
  • Media


I don't want to denigrate any of these areas of relevance or constituencies; these are all important things. But, just where is the SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF ARCHAEOLOGY? That is, where is the discussion of the value of archaeological data and concepts for understanding issues in other disciplines within the natural and social sciences (or the humanities, for that matter)? Not in this paper.


Now, there is a short section that suggests archaeologist should "link natural and human ecosystems through a landscape perspective in order to facilitate outreach to and interaction with other disciplines" ((p.30). This is a worthwhile goal, but it does not describe how I strive to relate my archaeology of ancient states and empires to the historical and social scientific communities and disciplines.

I would like to think that research by me and my colleagues on ancient cities, putting them into a framework that connects to research on contemporary urbanism, might be a way that archaeology has value beyond archaeology. Urban planners, sociologists, geographers, political scientists, and complexity scientists have used archaeological data in their work, largely because some of us have promoted the value of archaeology in these and other disciplines through publishing in their journals and interacting with colleagues (Smith 2011).

Tim Kohler and I recently organized a group of colleagues to publish a paper on ancient wealth inequality in the journal Nature (Kohler et al. 2017). This paper has generated considerable interest beyond archaeology. We have given many interviews and participated in radio and internet programs (I see this as my 15 minutes of fame). Tim was interviewed on All Things Considered! But I have also had contact with a variety of scholars in other disciplines who are interested in our work, and anxious to see the edited volume now in press (Kohler and Smith 2018). This particular set of archaeological findings is valuable, relevant, and of great interest to scholars in other disciplines. It forms a major contribution (IMHO) to the field of study of comparative and historical patterns of inequality. Yet, for Minnis et al. (2017), this kind of work is not an example of archaeology being of value beyond archaeology!
Graph from Nature
Coming soon to a bookstore near you

If you are interested in MY approach to the value of archaeology beyond archaeology, check out my other blog, Wide Urban World. The basic premise is that urbanism and settlements form a domain of analysis, a "wide urban world," that encompasses the distant past, the recent past, the present, and the future. My assumption is that the archaeology of settlements is indeed of interest beyond archaeology. I'm not the only one working and publishing in this area (relating archaeological findings to those of other disciplines), but our work is left out of the recent paper by Minnis et al. I guess we need to not only convince economists or sociologists or ecologists of the value of our work, but we also need to convince some of our archaeological colleagues.


References

Kohler, Timothy A. and Michael E. Smith (editors)
2018 Ten Thousand Years of Inequality: The Archaeology of Wealth Differences. University of Arizona Press (in press), Tucson.

Kohler, Timothy A., Michael E. Smith, Amy Bogaard, Gary M. Feinman, Christina E. Peterson, Aleen Betzenhauser, Matthew C. Pailes, Elizabeth C. Stone, Anna Marie Prentiss, Timothy Dennehy, Laura Ellyson, Linda M. Nicholas, Ronald K. Faulseit, Amy Styring, Jade Whitlam, Mattia Fochesato, Thomas A. Foor, and Samuel Bowles
2017 Greater Post-Neolithic Wealth Disparities in Eurasia than in North and Mesoamerica. Nature 551: 619-622.

Minnis, Paul E., Jeremy Sabloff, Susan M. Chandler, Deborah Gangloff, J.W. Joseph, Barbara Little, Patricia A. McAnanyh, Duane Peter, Lynne Sebastian, Christopher P. Thornton, Joe Watkins, and John E. Yellen
2017 Valuing Archaeology Beyond Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 18 (6): 28-32.

Smith, Michael E.
2010 Just How Useful is Archaeology for Scientists and Scholars in Other Disciplines? SAA Archaeological Record 10 (4): 15-20.

2010 Sprawl, Squatters, and Sustainable Cities: Can Archaeological Data Shed Light on Modern Urban Issues? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20: 229-253.

Smith, Michael E.
2011 Why Anthropology is too Narrow an Intellectual Context for Archaeology. Anthropologies 3: (online).

2012 The Role of Ancient Cities in Research on Contemporary Urbanization. UGEC Viewpoints (Urbanization and Global Environmental Change) 8: 15-19.

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.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Why I dislike TAG, and why I dislike social media

I saw a tweet a week or two ago about the upcoming TAG ("Theoretical Archaeology Group") conference. I made an offhand negative comment, which set off a series of negative tweets about me. 

"Wow, not a single session I'd want to attend! Am I just out of it, or is "theoretical archaeology" out of it???


I tried to engage with my critics, but it just led to accusations that I am a troll and a bully. Finally I tweeted "I give up." So, I thought I would put down some of the reasons I dislike TAG, and some comments on social media.

Social media first. 

Here are a few things I dislike. Please note that my reference here is social media in relation to professional and scholarly issues.

(1) Ad hominem attacks.  As soon as I made a negative remark about TAG, I was attacked personally. I must be a bad person. I should shut up. This attitude is antithetical to science and scholarship.

It's really unfortunate when senior scholars would rather bully and troll than actually have conversations.

I guess my initial tweet shows that I am a bully and a troll. Huh??

(2) Sensibility is more important than facts. My tone of voice had negative overtones (which shows I am a bad person). Maybe I should be more careful in my phrasing so as not to suggest anything negative about anyone or anything. 

came across snooty, elitist and arrogant. Like othet people's ideas arent good enough for you

This is TWITTER, with short cryptic statements. I don't agonize over proper phrasing. I tend to be a direct person, and I try to express myself clearly. Again, the dominance of sensibility over content is antithetical to science and scholarship.

(3) There are "Like" buttons, but no "Dislike" buttons. This is built into social media today. You can like something, but there is no way to express dislike other than some kind of comment or textual response. Criticism and questioning are of less importance than joining a band-wagon. Again, this attitude is antithetical to science and scholarship.


TAG

To start with, if you care about how I think about theory, science, scholarship, and archaeology, please read my publications. I am a scholar, and what I say in Tweets (and in this blog) is ephemeral. I do discuss real issues here, but what matters is the published record. So, please look at the three papers cited below for my views on theory. These should make it clear why I dislike TAG. But here is a quick version.

First, for me, theory is a tool, something archaeologists use to learn about the past. The domain of "archaeological theory" is pretty small (ideas about formation of the archaeological record, recovery methods, etc.), but the domain of productive theory for archaeologists is huge. It encompasses many disciplines, from political science to ecology, from urban planning to geomorphology, from cultural anthropology to complex systems theory. For many or most people into TAG, archaeology theory is something important on its own, not just a tool to use to explain our findings. Instead of using theory to explain data (the norm in the social sciences), many archaeologists want to use data to "theorize" an issue. My goal is not to create more theory, but to use LESS THEORY (Besbris, Max and Shamus Khan,  2017,  Less Theory. More Description. Sociological Theory 35(2):147-153), or Healy, Kieran,  2017,  F**k Nuance. Sociological Theory 35(2):118-127.

Second, most theory considered at TAG is interpretivist, humanities-based high-level social theory. What is wrong with that? Read my publications. If you want to speculate about the human condition, such theory is great stuff, but if you want to provide rigorous explanations of human behavior and society, it is all but worthless. Please check the citations in my articles about this. My claims may seem outrageous to TAG types, but I am just repeating standard social-science epistemology. 

Here are some comments from my Twitter detractors.

(1) I should engage with TAG, go to a meeting. Here is my reply:

Because most TAG sessions are epistemologically incompatible with my own perspective. Not worth my time to sit through such sessions. If others care about my views, they should read my publications, e.g., ((I provide links to my 2015 and 2017 papers in the tweet)).



(2) I should open myself up to different perspectives and points of view

what's wrong with exposing yourself to new ideas? If you only ever listen to people lile yourself its kinda dull

I have spent a career listening to the postprocessualists, actor-network theory, materiality, and such, and I have rarely found much of use or of interest in this material. Yet given the trandisciplinary turn of my own research trajectory since moving to ASU in 2005, I would guess that I have exposed myself to more new ideas in that period than most archaeologists. Read my publications.

(3) I am arguing for a single narrow view of archaeology that excludes many, "including a lot of marginalized voices." My response to this has two components: (A) for the kind of empirical social-science research that I favor, I believe strongly that the kind of epistemology and theory I promote is the most productive approach. (B) for other kinds of approaches to archaeology, with other goals, other approaches are fine.

I appreciate a lot of your work, but you draw these boundaries and say that it's the only real or valuable archaeology and it leaves a lot of the discipline out, including a lot of marginalized voices. I think you can dislike something without being dismissive of it.

So, here we are back to sensibilities. If you care at all about these issues, please read my publications, and forget about Twitter (or this blog). You can look at my series of three posts about my view of a scientific archaeology:


The 2017 publication covers these issues in a more compact form (although the blog posts do have much more complete bibliogrphies, given the limitations on the Antiquity paper). and the earlier papers have more on the structure of arguments (2015) and the nature of non-asbtract theory (2011).











Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Science, publishing, and James E. Heath

I started this blog ten years ago with a quote from my father-in-law, James E. Heath: "If it's not published, it's not science." That seemed a good entry into issues of publishing in archaeology, a way to promote my own scientific perspective on archaeology. Dad Heath died this week, so I want to look at aspects of his career and life that have been influential in my own development as a scholar and scientist.
James E. Heath

My wife Cindy can be very traditional about things. When I asked her to marry me, her answer was a tentative yes. I had to ask her father for his blessing. I was nervous of course, Not only was he an imposing figure and her father, but he was also Head of the Physiology Department at the University of Illinois and I was a mere graduate student. I honestly don't recall the details of our little chat, but I guess it worked out well, since Cindy and I are still married after more than 30 years. But I do remember that shortly after our talk, he said to me, "It would have been simpler if I had just asked to see your CV."

One of the lessons I learned from Jim Heath was the importance of rigor and quality of research and publication. He edited a journal for many years (Journal of Thermobiology, I think it was), he got million-dollar grants, and he was a serious and productive scientist (temperature regulation was his field, if you haven't guessed). One of the reasons I get so fed up with much archaeology today is that his values of rigor and quality are too often lacking among my colleagues. Why do journals publish such crap? How do people get grants to do such poorly conceived research? How can an article win a prize when it has NO DATA? I get exercised about these things in part because of Jim Heath's influence on my attitude toward research and science.

He was my academic mentor. I would ask him about issues and quandaries, and I valued his advice. I was once asked to evaluate a colleague (at another university) for promotion to Full Professor. I did not have much respect for this person's work; in fact I had used one of his/her articles in a seminar as a negative example--how NOT to write an article. I was a newly-promoted Professor, so I asked some of my senior colleagues at SUNY-Albany what to do. They all said to duck the task - say I was too busy and avoid writing a critical letter. I asked Dad about this, and he said that I should accept the invitation. They wanted my professional opinion, and I should give them what they asked for.  It was my professional responsibility. But what was I going to say? This person has few grants, few publications, and their work is of low quality? Tact is not a quality I am known for (some of you are probably laughing here, thinking, "That's an understatement!"). I worried about writing a strongly negative letter. He gave me some help with ways of phrasing my remarks that didn't sound so harsh, but made the point clearly. I have recalled his advice usefully at various points in my career.

It was also fun to have a father-in-law who had carried out a famous experiment, known as the "beer-can experiment." Evidently claims had been made that reptiles actually do regulate their temperature (contrary to accepted knowledge) based on some experimental results of measuring their temperature throughout the day in the sun. Dad's paper (Heath 1964) describes an experiment in which he measured the temperature of a beer can in the sun, that found the same results as the reptile studies. So if those results mean that reptiles can thermoregulate, then so can beer cans! What a great experiment. And who says that beer does not contribute to science.

Jim Heath studied temperature regulation in all kinds of animals, from insects to polar bears. I remember stories about taking the rectal temperature of hibernating bears. Evidently there were some bears in the Midwest who hibernated in known locations in barns, and the farmers let crazy physiologists come study them. I think hibernation is a big deal for research on temperature regulation. So how do you take the rectal temperature of a hibernating bear? The obvious answer is that you have a graduate student do the task! I recall a story about a graduate student being lowered into the depths of a barn  on a rope, armed with a thermometer for the bear.

Moving from bears to insects, my in-laws spent a lot of time studying cicadas in the U.S. Southwest. My mother-in-law, Maxine Heath, is an entomologist whose specialty is the systematics of North American cicacas (Sanborm and Heath 2012). So the two of them would do a cicada run each year, studying and collecting in a series of locations across the southwest. One question they have worked on is the temperature at which cicadas became active. I've been out with them once or twice, and Cindy has helped out numerous times. And they managed to take all the grandchildren out on a research trip. Here is how the fieldwork goes. They drive around the desert, listening for singing cicadas. When they find some, they note the conditions (species of tree, ambient temperature, sun or shade, etc.) and then collect one or two specimens. These are put in the ice chest, with the beer and sandwiches, to cool them off. The cicadas get cold and inactive (I think torpor is the technical term). At the end of the day, back in a motel room, you take the cold and sluggish bugs out of the cooler and start throwing them up in the air above the bed. At first they just fall back onto the bed. But when they have warmed up enough, they start to fly instead of just falling down. You grab them and take their temperature, which tells you at what temperature they become active. Whenever anyone suggests that archaeological fieldwork is strange, I think of this biological fieldwork. I just hope they keep the curtains closed while the bug-throwing is going on.

While I appreciate these and other stories from my father-in-laws's research career, what I most value is the professional advice he gave me, and the lessons I learned just from talking with him and hearing him talk about science, about publishing, and professional life. I would like to think that some of the ranting and raving I have done in this blog--in the name of quality and rigor in archaeology--derive from what I learned at family gatherings. I still think Jim Heath's statement to me years ago -- "If it't not published, it's not science" -- is valid and relevant to what we do as archaeologists. RIP.

Heath, James E.
1964 Reptile Thermoregulation: Evaluation of Field Studies. Science 145: 748-785.

Sanborn, Alan F., and Maxine S. Heath
2012 The Cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadoidea: Cicadae) of North America North of 
                    Mexico.   Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD.


Saturday, April 22, 2017

Qualitative-quantitative bus joke

A quantitative evaluator, a qualitative evaluator, and a normal person are waiting for a bus. The normal person suddenly shouts, “Watch out, the bus is out of control and heading right for us! We will surely be killed!” Without looking up from his newspaper, the quantitative evaluator calmly responds, “That is an awfully strong causal claim you are making. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that buses can kill people, but the research does not bear this out. People ride buses all the time and they are rarely killed by them. The correlation between riding buses and being killed by them is very nearly zero. I defy you to produce any credible evidence that buses pose a significant danger. It would really be an extraordinary thing if we were killed by a bus. I wouldn’t worry.”
Dismayed, the normal person starts gesticulating and shouting, “But there is a bus! A particular bus! That bus! And it is heading directly toward some particular people! Us! And I am quite certain that it will hit us, and if it hits us it will undoubtedly kill us!”
At this point the qualitative evaluator, who was observing this exchange from a safe distance, interjects, “What exactly do you mean by bus? After all, we all construct our own understanding of that very fluid concept. For some, the bus is a mere machine, for others it is what connects them to their work, their school, the ones they love. I mean, have you ever sat down and really considered the bus-ness of it all? It is quite immense, I assure you. I hope I am not being too forward, but may I be a critical friend for just a moment? I don’t think you’ve really thought this whole bus thing out. It would be a pity to go about pushing the sort of simple linear logic that connects something as conceptually complex as a bus to an outcome as one dimensional as death.”
Very dismayed, the normal person runs away screaming, the bus collides with the quantitative and qualitative evaluators, and it kills both instantly.
Very, very dismayed, the normal person begins pleading with a bystander, “I told them the bus would kill them. The bus did kill them. I feel awful.”

To which the bystander replies, “Tut tut, my good man. I am a statistician and I can tell you for a fact that with a sample size of 2 and no proper control group, how could we possibly conclude that it was the bus that did them in?”

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Social media attack to blog post to journal article

figure from my paper
My paper, "Social Science and Archaeological Enquiry", was just released, online, by the journal Antiquity (last week, I think). It is volume 91 (356), pp. 520 - 528. You can find a copy here.   This is without a doubt the strangest journey to publication of any of my papers, so maybe it is worth telling. I have the Grateful Dead on in the background, which helps. The story begins with my attendance at a talk on the "new materiality" by Rosemary Joyce at the University of Colorado Department of Anthropology in late January or early February, 2016. I did not like the lecture, and I made some snide remarks about it in this blog, here.

The new materiality: Vacuous or just incomprehensible?

Looking back, I was perhaps a bit harsh in my tone, bordering on rudeness. Some students from UCB posted some critical remarks about my post on their departmental Facebook page.

You can see some of the posts from the Boulder group here.

I fired back and posted some more remarks on my blog. I was taken to task by the department chairman, in a rather rude ad hominen post, for shooting my mouth off without restraint, rather like a small child. You can find all this pretty easily if you are interested (note: it is not very interesting...). Nearly all of the criticisms from Boulder suggested that my speech was not valued. I was insulting; I was trying to spoil their special lecture; I should not say such nasty things about their distinguished visitor. Many people came along and liked their critical posts. I became a pariah to UCB Anthropology-Facebook. But not a word about the intellectual content of the lecture or my reaction to it.

I was dismayed, insulted, and demoralized by my first social-media hazing event. The comments to some of my blog posts discuss some of these issues. But to me, the key issues were--and are--scientific and intellectual. I found the whole approach of Rosemary Joyce's talk to be anti-scientific and thus detrimental to the advance of the kind of archaeology I advocate in this blog. I was particularly incensed at her argument that fields like archaeology had to choose between the humanities and the natural sciences. She claimed that, given the inadequacies of natural science, we should choose to follow the humanities. This is so wrong-headed, it drove me nuts.

My reactions led to me create a series of posts that clarified my views of science, social science, and the place of archaeology. Writing these helped me clarify my own views of the topic, and try to put them into a framework that would be clear to other archaeologists (ever wonder why i blog? This is a primary reason - it helps me clarify my thoughts).

Science, Social science, and archaeology: Where do we stand?

Pascal Boyer's view of science, social science, and the humanities

Why is it important to strive for a more scientific archaeology?

Why is a scientific archaeology so hard to achieve?

((you can get to the later posts from the first one))

After this whole event had died down, it occurred to me that I should present these ideas in a larger venue, in a streamlined and more efficient context. Why had no one called the postprocessualists to task for their outdated and inaccurate views of positivism and science? Why haven't scientifically-minded archaeologists shot back at the epistemological hogwash? So I sent off a short piece to Antiquity, and they accepted it. I was a bit nervous, wondering if it was entirely proper to put ideas from a blog post into a journal article. But this was not at all a literal re-doing of the blog. The basic message was the same, though. I came across the paper on archaeological theory by Julian Thomas, and found that none of the work I do - theoretical or empirical - would fit under his definition of "archaeological theory." So I contrasted it with the list of different approaches to archaeological theory given by Jarvie and  Zamora-Bomilla. I also continued some of the themes from my paper on archaeological arguments.

So the path of this article was:

- attended a talk I did not like
- wrote a snarky blog post about it
- was attacked on social media
- sharpened my thinking in a series of blog posts
- condensed and sharpened the ideas further for a journal paper

So, I figured that it was time for another blog post (this one). Perhaps I should give a bad lecture on the whole affair and complete the circle. Or maybe I should shut up and concentrate my efforts on publications, not blogs.

To quote my favorite rock band, "What a long strange trip its been....."

References:

Jarvie, Ian and Jesús Zamora-Bomilla (editors)
2011 Sage Handbook of the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Sage, New York.

Smith, Michael E.
2015 How Can Archaeologists Make Better Arguments? The SAA Archaeological Record 15 (4): 18-23.

2017 Social Science and Archaeological Inquiry. Antiquity 91: 520-528.

Thomas, Julian
2015 The Future of Archaeological Theory. Antiquity 89: 1287-1296.






Thursday, January 26, 2017

The speculation scale (the inverse of empirical adequacy)

ASU student Lisa Gallagher in our lab
I am posting this from the ASU lab at Teotihuacan in Mexico. I will be attending a conference on Teo sponsored by UNAM and Penn State over the next few days. On the trip down I read one of the worst articles I've read in a long time. I was surprised that the paper was accepted by a journal. It was published in a new journal, Economic Anthropology, whose standards have perhaps not risen to a level the editors would like. Did anyone review this paper?

This bad article got me thinking about the ratio between the scope or breadth of the claims made in a study, and the amount of data used. Works with a low ratio are often called "descriptive" studies. Works with a high ratio, on the other hand, contain little data, but make sweeping claims that go far beyond the data at hand. These are speculative studies, work that is poorly grounded. The paper I just read had a very high ratio, which is why I disliked it so much. Satisfying research in archaeology (and the social and historical sciences generally) usually falls in the mid-range of this scale.

I decided to create a graphic to illustrate this speculation scale. First I created nine data-to-interpretation schemes. These are combinations of three categories: low medium, and high amounts of data (blue circles), and low, medium and high levels of interpretation (red squares). I label these schemes from one  to nine, and arrange them on the speculation scale (see graphic).

Scheme 1 occupies the low, or descriptive, end of the scale. Those enamored of theory often dismiss such studies as "merely descriptive." But those of us who like to analyze data often find these studies useful as a source of data (that is, IF the data are adequately described and derive from rigorous methods, etc.). Schemes 2 and 3 are also descriptive in nature: the amount of data exceeds the amount of interpretation.

At the top of the scale, scheme 9 pertains to what I consider to be useless works. Who needs a bunch of speculation with little or no data? Unless the work is an editorial or opinion essay, or a work of pure theory, papers illustrating scheme 9 that purport to be empirical advances in fact contribute little to scholarship. How do these things get past reviewers and editors? But they do. Schemes 7 and 8 are also speculative in nature, although less flagrant than scheme 9. Quite a few studies in archaeology fit here. Most work in postprocessual and "social" archaeology probably correspond to schemes 7 and 8.

The schemes that fall in the middle of the speculation scale--schemes 4, 5, and 6--are those that seem most satisfying to most archaeologists. They are empirical studies based on real data that employ concepts and theories for explanation or interpretation. The amount of data is balanced by the amount of interpretation; the level of interpretation matches the amount of data.

*** ADDITION, Jan 30:  This graphic is probably a simpler way of showing the relationship:

*********

Obviously, this is a simplistic device for looking at the quality of publications. It says little about the quality of the data, or about the fit between interpretation and data. If you apply inappropriate models, your results will be suspect, even if the data and models are both of good quality on their own. But schemes like this can help us think about the adequacy of our models, interpretations, and explanations. If you have only a limited amount of data, then you should probably bypass big elaborate explanations and try to find something on a smaller scale. I know the postprocessualists and postmodernists will think I am being regressive here, but if archaeology is to be a science and generate reliable knowledge about the past, then we need to be able to match up our data with our interpretations/explanations. For more along these lines, see my series on archaeology as a science, starting with this post, or see my forthcoming paper:

Smith, Michael E.
2017?   Social Science and Archaeological Inquiry. Antiquity  (in press).

The field of economic anthropology has generally been relatively empirical in orientation, with good epistemology. I would think that a journal with that title would know better than to publish a paper whose score on the speculation scale (scheme 9) is so high. Ugh.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Is Academia.edu really such a bad thing?

Academia.edu has been getting a lot of negative press in the scholarly community. I see some of this on Twitter, and I've been sent some articles and links. I just read Sarah Bond's article in Forbes, "Dear Scholars, Delete your Account at Academia.edu.:" She has three objections to Academia. I don't find any of them compelling, although one of them is troubling. First, "It is not a 'real' .edu" The domain is an old one and a commercial operation seems to be disguising itself as an educational institution. Wow, I was really fooled by that. Stupid and unsophisticated users might get confused. Give me a break, this is trivial.

Second, Academia is trying to get money for enhanced features. I guess I'm not sure how that is a bad thing. Perhaps if the basic fact that they are commercializing scholarship (my point 3) is abhorrent to you, then the enhanced features might be especially abhorrent. Again, this seems trivial to me.

Third, Academia is commercializing scholarship. They are trying to make money on the backs of scholars who do the work pretty much for free. This I see as troubling, but not a killer problem. Compare this to Elsevier and other commercial publishers. They commercialize scholarship, making money off my hard work, while inhibiting access to it. They harm my career by making money restricting access to my works. I find that practice morally abhorrent. By contrast, Academia.edu is commercializing scholarship while promoting and improving my career and professional goals. They are making my papers more widely available. I am not at all outraged by this fact, but I am somewhat disturbed by it.

What are the alternatives? I also have a page on Selected Works. I started that on a trial basis (as I did with Academia), but Academia.edu quickly turned out to be an easier process for uploading and gave my papers more readers. Selected Works does have a few features lacking at Academia (e.g., you can file a paper under more than one category). I initially posted papers on my own funky html website (now seriously out of date). Elsevier threatened my university and we got an order from an administrator to remove published papers without explicit permission to post (which I ignored). Now, the university is going to eliminate funky faculty sites and promote a more standardized (properly branded) faculty website, which I may or may not use to post my papers. My university does have an online archive, but it is not set up properly as a paper repository, and this would bury my papers even deeper than they are in my own site. I have considered posting papers there, and using links (not papers) on Academia edu. I am sure not going to start using an NEH website for important professional works, given uncertainties of the Trump presidency.

The professional society in my discipline, the Society for American Archaeology, is hopeless for help with archiving papers. I have considered using the new sociology version of ArXiv, and perhaps replacing papers on Academia.edu with links. It is called SocArXiv. It is mainly inertia that keeps me from making any changes right now.

For me, the  advancement of scholarship and promotion of wide access to my work are among my strongest professional values. Sometimes this requires me to do unpleasant things--talk to uninformed reporters, collaborate with individuals I'd rather avoid, deal with clueless journal editors, write grant proposals, go to faculty meetings. Putting up with Academia.edu trying to make money on my scholarship is just another of those unpleasant things I have to do. Yes, I would be more comfortable with a good archive, widely used and convenient, that was not a commercial enterprise. But until I find that (and have the time for a massive conversion), I will continue to put up with Academia.edu.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Have we gotten out of the crisis in Latin American book reviews?

I have always been a big fan of book reviews. When I get a new journal, I may scan the article titles first, but I almost always read the book reviews before the articles. Book reviews are an important part of quality control in scholarly disciplines where books are prominent (as in archaeology). In the past I have blogged about the book review crisis in Latin American archaeology: See my posts in:

2008,  2009,  2011

For a decade, very few books were being reviewed in the main journal, Latin American Antiquity. The major Mesoamerican journal, Ancient Mesoamerica, doesn't published book reviews at all! But now, book reviews are trending up in quantity. I thought there were more reviews in LAA over the past year, so I counted them up. Here are the data, starting in 1997.


These figures paint a bleak picture of the decline of quality control in Latin American archaeology starting around 2004. But after six years of almost no reviews (average of one--count, 'em--1 per issue!), things are trending up in 2016.

Book reviews are important for many reasons. First, they get out the news about new publications. Second, a good book review is a gem of a short essay on the topic of the book. Because I try to keep up with urban research at some level in many different disciplines, I use book reviews to help guide my reading. And third, book reviews give an indication of the quality of the book. Bad books are called out, and good books are praised. I recently had to give a quick judgment on the quality and influence of a book in a field far from my own (NOT Latin American archaeology!). I was able to find four book reviews easily, and they gave me the information I needed.

Let's hope this trend at Latin American Antiquity continues! Perhaps Ancient Mesoamerican might be persuaded to begin reviewing books. When I have suggested this at the board meetings, the response has been, "Fine, if you want to organize it, go ahead," hardly an enthusiastic promise of support.

If you are asked to review a book, please do it. If you would like to see more book reviews, contact the relevant journal editors and let them know. Our field has need of all the quality control we can get, and book reviews should be a major part of our collective strategy of disciplinary improvement.