Tony has drawn my attention to a strange article in the current edition of British Archaeology. It's an opinion piece on p 66, written by Dr Chloe Duckworth. It is entitled "Woke archaeology and culture wars" and while I am not entirely sure what its main point is, there is much in it that I agree with. She criticises equalities minister Kemi Badenoch for interfering in academia and for suggesting that a research article on the relationship between ethnicity and susceptibility to the bubonic plague was "sensationalist research" coming from "woke archaeology". Well, Badenoch is a very silly person who should keep her nose out of things she does not understand. She and her pet parliamentary rottweilers should know better than to interfere in the academic peer review and publication process. And to use the word "woke" as a term of abuse is calculated to appeal to the nasty people who lurk in the shadows at the far right of the political spectrum. In my experience, the great majority of academics of my acquaintance, across all disciplines, have liberal or social democratic tendencies and are rather good at empathising with those in society who are less well off than they are themselves. If that makes them "woke" that's fine by me. But it is a horrible and disgusting word that smacks of complacency, arrogance and intolerance, and I have an instant mistrust of anybody who uses it. So yes, go for it, Chloe, and flag up the general nastiness of Bedenoch and her ilk........ even in a sensitive and refined magazine like British Archaeology........
As for the rest of the article, I'm not so sure. Ostensibly it is about the Stonehenge road tunnel and ponders on whether it is woke (or not) to support it or oppose it. I have no particularly strong view on the matter of the tunnel, but I do think it's important for archaeologists to be respected by those who hold views that are not in tune with their own. And on this matter they are their own worst enemies. For example, members of the archaeology establishment have based many of their arguments against the tunnel on the emotional, spiritual or even mystical value of Stonehenge and its landscape. We have all heard about the "desecration" of the historic landscape -- and that arises, of course, from decades of myth creation. Gordon Barclay and Kenny Brophy are not alone in expressing concern about mythologisation and marketing of the Stonehenge landscape as something more religious than historic. That overblown view of the old ruin and its landscape, and the ground beneath, does not necessarily strike a chord with everybody, and especially with those who may be concerned with traffic safety and journey times!
At the end of the article Chloe seems to be arguing that archaeologists should be trusted by politicians and others because "scientific rigour" is built into their DNA. Yes, many archaeologists are scientifically rigorous in their work. But others are not, and they are the ones who blow their trumpets most loudly. They may be technically competent, and indeed they use many high-powered tools in their investigative work -- so for them the term "technical rigour" might be more appropriate. Some of them clearly have no idea what science is, or how it works. On this blog, over the past 15 years, I have been highly critical of archaeologists who simply ignore inconvenient evidence, refuse to cite peer-reviewed articles that draw conclusions at odds with their own, and who appear more interested in developing exciting narratives than in finding out the truth. We can blame "post-processualism" if we like, which at its core seems to demonstrate a profound mistrust of, and dislike for, academic or scientific rigour. One of the leading journals, Antiquity, published from Cambridge University, seems to have abandoned scientific peer review and now routinely publishes papers that are so full of assumptions, speculations and confirmation bias that they should never have been published at all.
If archaeology wants respect, on the matter of the Stonehenge tunnel or anything else, the academics need to sort out what they believe in and how they behave.
2 comments:
“scientific rigour" is built into their DNA.
There's an issue stemming from post processual archaeology: if you take the view that we can never know how people thought in the past, then science becomes irrelevant in some circumstances. For example, if I were to assert that a certain type of house would not have been built because it would frequently collapse and kill its inhabitants, then who is to say, using post processual argument, that a Neolithic mind would not have relished the idea of randomly collapsing houses; serving a ritual purpose with sacrificial intent?
The problem then comes with contributing to archaeology. Scientific work from outside the archaeological profession could be used to make a case, under post processual thinking, for something that others in that technical arena would consider pseudo-science but which, at the same time, could be considered rigorous post processual thinking.
Yes, it's a mess, Jon. I haven't followed the full debate, but from where I stand PPA appears to be arrogant, lazy and downright dangerous. It's a handy theoretical underpinning for people who are not really interested in the truth but who simply enjoy fantasising and weaving narratives, while saying "Don't criticise me -- I am just as likely to be correct as you are, because you and I think differently, and the people in my story did not necessarily behave rationally anyway."
So the scientific method can simply be abandoned on spurious intellectual grounds, and replaced by a shambles. How else do we explain the publication in "Antiquity" of those three appalling articles by MPP et al relating to Rhosyfelin, Carn Goedog and Waun Mawn? Is it now a PPA journal, in which anything goes, as long as it is nicely presented? Does the Editor actually ask for peer review? If so, what are the reviewers supposed to look for in a manuscript if the rules of evidence presentation, interpretation and hypothesis testing have all been slung out as being irrelevant? Some nice photos and maps, some impressive wacky analytical techniques, a densely packed table or two, and an appearance of scientific credibility? And this journal comes out of the Cambridge University stable? How are the mighty fallen.....
Post a Comment