I'm on a terrible computer at work that keeps misbehaving so I don't know if my previous reply came through.
I said that I don't think archaeologists are 'god(s)' either, but at least when interpreting a site/obects they need to be *very careful* about showing how they came to their conclusions because they are being judged by other critical archaeologitsts, whereas New Age practitoiners don't have to answer to anybody, in fact they'd ignore criticism rather than take it on. This was my experience when attending a 'Goddess Tours in Turkey' slide show a few years ago. I asked a few really quite simple questions about certain interpretations about 'goddess' artefacts and was the recipeient of comments about how I must be man-centric and not supportive of goddess religion - because I questioned some New Age interpretations. In fact I'm *very* intrested in ancient goddesses and the place of women in ancient and modern societies... Anyway, I found myself removed from the mailing list of that goddess group.
~Caroline.
---- kaligrafr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Aloha,
>
> Caroline Tully wrote:
> > I'm not ignoring a text, or how a text is produced. I'm just ignoring what non-academic Goddess Worshippers have to say about an archaeological site because I think they are wrong and I lean more towards listening to the academic team of excavators. If anyone is doing any ignoring, it is the Goddess Worshippers!
> Archaeologists are certainly capable of taking a particular outlook on a
> site, an artifact, or an inferred cultural trait--and defending that
> outlook
> to the death.
>
> I think that access to sites and to items of material culture probably do
> give archaeologists an advantage when it comes to offering interpretations
> of findings. But doing archeology is not an assurance of being correct--
> or even in the ballpark.
>
> I've met an archaeologist or two who simply knew that their outlook on
> this site, that artifact, the recently discovered skull fragment one of
> their
> hapless grad students or local scouts uncovered was the one true and correct
> outlook. Critical inquirers and other outlooks need not apply.
>
> I'm not putting this up to defend goddess worshipers or entrepreneurial
> promotion of local sites as tourist attractions. Their outlooks, and the
> stuff
> they put out, can be incorrect, even deliberately misleading when it
> comes to
> getting a handle on the past.
>
> Back to archaeologists and their sometimes zeal over an outlook. I think
> that
> the academic constellation of professional subcultures may support this
> sort
> of zeal, even let it pass unquestioned, or evangelize it. Academic
> enthusiasms and
> schools of thought may be just as compelling or compulsive as any
> non-academic
> religious movement.
>
> In a somewhat more expansive sense, let me add that I think that we may all
> resist being studied because such studies might uncover some of the
> backstage
> goings on that tend to tarnish front stage glamors.
>
> Musing I Go With Archaeologists Before Goddess Worshipers, Too!
> But I Try To Stay A Little Skeptical About The Archaeologists! Rose,
>
> Pitch
|