First off, AJ, it was good to see you again. This was the first field work I've done with you since a quick back-fill near Circleville. I hope the Big Horn Mucky-Mucks let you come back and dig with us in the next few weeks.
Second, as I've been wandering wind-swept lithic scatters near Clear Creek Canyon, I wondered what type of theory/ies will it take to replace the Madsen and Simms model? Can it be replaced? Madsen and Simms have certainly made their model difficult to test, but many out there don't subscribe to it.
Can those who have different perspectives on the Fremont ever overcome academic marginalization? I've talked a little about this with Chris, and he seems to be of the opinion that publications and reasearch based on different perspectives should continue at a slow and steady pace eventually providing a foundation for a different model (correct me if I'm wrong Chris). I think Mr. Watkins has the right idea. No good will come from a combatitive approach to the M/S model without a solid foundation to rely on.
What do the rest of you think? Will we ever see a revolution?
4 comments:
We could do this, but I don't think it needs to necessarily slow and steady. For example, we should all give at least 2 papers at the next GBAC, and maybe organize some symposia.
We don't even need to address Madsen and Simms directly. We would just have to take the Joel and Rich party line, i.e. there is room for everyone at the macroscale. If we start citing Clear Creek, others will follow. It's about building a base, and we could do it.
I agree. I think what Chris said about Joel and Rich's view is right....there is room at the table for everyone. I personally like a couple of pieces of thought from the Madsen and Simms perspective. What I don't like is that they've locked everyone else out. Whether on purpose or just through the fact that they are the ones who have put up big ideas for people to think about. It’s easy to say Mad-Simm is wrong, but until someone else comes up with something better, AND GETS IT PUBLISHED, their model is going to stay. Plus folks, we’re in the Great Basin. That means the people who come up with a different way of thinking about the Fremont have a big job ahead of them as they will have to wade through a mire of behavioral ecology 30+ years in the making. For a real turn around in Fremont theory and practice, I honestly think it is going to take at least 5-10 years. I imagine it will take this long to produce the small works necessary to formulate a major theoretical position that will actually have some bite to it. And I’m pretty sure that BYU alumni (i.e. us) are the ones who are going to have to do it, as others are either not interested or are brainwashed into a very narrow view of BE. As to replacement, well, honestly; I would like to see some kind of merger of the well thought out, applicable, realistic, pieces of behavioral ecology and the more humane, choice conscience, culture driven aspects of southwestern archaeological research. What I would hate to see though, is a replacement of one dogma for another. What we need is researchers who are willing to use what WORKS, regardless of what camp it seems to come from. If it makes sense, has solid methodology and data, and most importantly….informs us about prehistoric behavior, then we should be open to it.
Amen Dave! The fact is that except for a comparative few far-out theories on aliens at Parowan Gap and such, most publications have atleast some small bit of truth to them. Madsen and Simms certainly aren't all bad, though I'm a huge believer that we've got to allow for agency and the importance of the individual. But revolution in its truest sense--that fast and sudden change in reaction to something no longer tolerable--is NOT what we should expect or aim for. Like Chris said, if we start flooding the market with Clear Creek references, alternative perspectives and research that suggests whether directly or indirectly that Madsen and Simms' take was ok 15 or 20 years ago, but now it really needs some work (and by that I'm really just shamelessly plugging my own paper), then we'll begin to build a following of more reasonably balanced arguments for Fremont-age culture.
We really do have a necessary change to execute and it really is on you big research PhD types to do it for the Fremont...er, Ancestral-Not-Paiute...but let's not go so 'the peasants are revolting' that the BE UofU folks react in force. We've given them the Joel and Rich view and even some of our own already. The water has already been turned up, but now it's time to move it toward boiling and cook the frogs of Behavioral Ecology. If we do it right, they'll never know what got them!
Thanks, Aaron. It was great to be able to work with the OPA gang again; all-be-it admittedly as an employee of Bighorn Archaeology. I have given this Madsen-Simms dilemma a lot of thought over the past few years since much like you I have been forced to delve into their literature (which appears to be everywhere when looking at the Fremont and the Great Basin region) and I have come to the conclusion that the head-on approach will never work for the simple reason that the Madsen-Simms World View is so diametrically apposed to the (for lack of a better name) Janetski-Talbot World View that even to have the two in the same room seems to ripe the very space-time continuum around them. As a result of this realization it is good to read your thoughts on the matter. To change an individual’s world view is of little use and generally unlikely when they have spent their academic career creating it. It is far better served, then, to simply replace that world view with another for the future archaeologists that come along (all of us are obviously included in that category since “WE ARE” obviously the future). We can cite J and Talbot’s work definitely, but more importantly we can test their models as well as test the models of the Madsen-Simms cronies - i.e. not so bright Bright’s (sp) stuff on expedient pottery. The models proposed by the children of Madsen-Simms are at least generally testable, unlike the Madsen-Simms model itself; which we all agree (I hope) is very hard - if even possible at all - to test. And if these theories, no hypotheses, or rather “ideas” based on Madsen-Simms are proven flawed through application and testing then it stands to reason that the Model from which they were spawned is flawed as well. It may very well take a life time or two to eradicate, or at least change, a world view (for that is exactly what it is) such as Behavioral Ecology, but it is I believe definitely possible.
Post a Comment