tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6522942857790236494..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Resilience and Reliability - keys to tomorrowDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2023808862329903272014-12-24T13:30:32.248-08:002014-12-24T13:30:32.248-08:00David
That is indeed the site. c'mon over an...David<br /><br />That is indeed the site. c'mon over and dig some year.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55157397063644042872014-12-24T12:42:21.061-08:002014-12-24T12:42:21.061-08:00For those who have seen me post this before and/or...For those who have seen me post this before and/or are already sick of it, nothing new to see here. But for those who have not, it's worth the read:<br /><br />From Kurt Vonnegut's novel "God Bless You Mr. Rosewater" published in 1964:<br /><i><br />When the United States of America, which was meant to be a Utopia for all, was less than a century old, Noah Rosewater and a few men like him demonstrated the folly of the Founding Fathers in one respect: those sadly recent ancestors had not made it the law of the Utopia that the wealth of each citizen should be limited. This oversight was engendered by a weak-kneed sympathy for those who loved expensive things, and by the feeling that the continent was so vast and valuable, and the population so thin and enterprising, that no thief, no matter how fast he stole, could more than mildly inconvenience anyone.<br /><br />Noah, and a few like him perceived that the continent was in fact finite, and that venal office-holders, legislators in particular, could be persuaded to toss great hunks of it up for grabs, and to toss them in such a way as to have them land where Noah and his kind were standing.<br /><br />Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus, the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went <b>bang</b> in the noonday sun.<br /><br /><b>E. pluribis unum</b> was surely an ironic motto to inscribe on the currency of this Utopia gone bust, for every grotesquely rich American represents property, privileges, and pleasures that have been deined the many. An even more instructive motto, in the light of history made by the Noah Rosewaters might be: <b>Grab much too much, or you'll get nothing at all.</b><br /></i> LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48373146932605989552014-12-24T12:40:41.851-08:002014-12-24T12:40:41.851-08:00Alex Tolley:
As for acquiring the commons, or pub...Alex Tolley:<br /><i><br />As for acquiring the commons, or public property, this is a problem. I see that NJ is about to allow privatization the municipal water supplies. Given how badly that worked out in the UK,<br /></i><br /><br />The Ayn Rand crowd likes to talk about the wealthy deserving all of their money without any obligation to the rest of society because, like Hank Rearden or Howard Roark, or real-life Bill Gates, they earn that wealth by actually producing something of value which would not have been available absent their brilliance and hard work.<br /><br />So I like to point out the difference between those rare examples of true wealth-producers vs the much more common variety of wealthy who acquire wealth by legally claiming part of the commons as their own private property. The former actually do increase the total wealth of the system (positive sum game), while the latter get rich by sucking wealth from the rest of us (zero-sum game). Then there are the Mitt Romneys of the world who engage in the negative-sum game of getting paid to engage in <b>destruction</b> of wealth.<br /><br />So you can't just talk about what "rich people" do or what "rich people" deserve, as if their wealth was all created equal.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78731686889259496262014-12-24T12:31:21.075-08:002014-12-24T12:31:21.075-08:00Paul Shen-Brown:
If you are rich, there is alway...Paul Shen-Brown:<br /><i><br /> If you are rich, there is always someone out there who is richer than you. If you are the richest man in town, everyone who is slightly less rich is actively trying to one up you. They are locked into a perpetual cycle, enforced by a culture of exploitation.<br /></i><br /><br />That's how I know there are different kinds of people in the world. Because if it were me, I'd want to be the <b>third</b> or <b>fourth</b> richest guy in the world, and instead of gunning for the top spot, I'd want to keep it as quiet as possible so no one would be gunning for <b>me</b>.<br /><br />I've heard it recently suggested that the system that pays CEOs tens of millions of dollars per year weeds out all but the sociopaths, because a normal person would quit after his first sixty-million dollar paycheck and just spend the rest of his life enjoying the proceeds. Only the insatiable continue working in a stressful job year after year to pull in more and more money. That's not an absolute truism--I'm sure Bill Gates works because he finds the work itself to be personally rewarding--but like any good story, it explains a lot.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34831579584069939862014-12-24T10:52:25.194-08:002014-12-24T10:52:25.194-08:00Tacitus is this the site? http://www.vindolanda.c...Tacitus is this the site? http://www.vindolanda.com/excavate<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7618884417887709892014-12-24T09:07:40.200-08:002014-12-24T09:07:40.200-08:00Alex, what you said about the rich keeping score i...Alex, what you said about the rich keeping score is exactly what Veblen was on about way back in 1899. If you are rich, there is always someone out there who is richer than you. If you are the richest man in town, everyone who is slightly less rich is actively trying to one up you. They are locked into a perpetual cycle, enforced by a culture of exploitation. They simply define a majority of the world's people as less than fully human so they can avoid any feelings of guilt.<br /><br />I can't recommend reading Veblen lightly, as it is Victorian prose - not exactly light holiday reading. It's like reading Marx or Freud or Darwin, though the book is mercifully thin. If you are good with the Victorian prose, it's worth a read. But Jonathan Swift's "Castle Rackrent" is much funnier.Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71769058931948663312014-12-24T08:29:57.044-08:002014-12-24T08:29:57.044-08:00Larry & Tacitus,
I suspect that the pathologi...Larry & Tacitus,<br /><br />I suspect that the pathologically insatiable are just about inevitable. I came to that conclusion long before reading Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class" - though it's nice to have someone else backing you up. But I long ago noticed that the most greedy among us are usually not the poorest, but the richest. The more people have, the more they want. It doesn't turn into a self-perpetuating spiral for everyone, but a culture of classism makes it kind of inevitable that the richest among us will perpetuate the parasitic cycle of conspicuous consumption. The only thing I can think of that can counter that, short of pointlessly bloody revolution (and we saw what the French Revolution accomplished), is to shame them as publicly and consistently as possible. Counter their "superiority" memes by exposing their parasitical nature and displaying both honor and accomplishment among "the people." Maybe I'm just dreaming.Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33006202748594339072014-12-24T08:24:04.741-08:002014-12-24T08:24:04.741-08:00@Jumper They have to actively pursue acquiring mo...@Jumper <i> They have to actively pursue acquiring more and more of the commons as private property, making the rest of us suffer at no appreciable additional benefit to themselves--unless the suffering of others is the benefit.</i><br /><br />I think it has more to do with keeping score. I also don't think the rich even think about any suffering they cause - the "little people" just don't matter. Didn't servants once have to face the wall when the master or mistress passed so that their faces weren't seen and their presence ignored.<br /><br />As for acquiring the commons, or public property, this is a problem. I see that NJ is about to allow privatization the municipal water supplies. Given how badly that worked out in the UK, I am astonished that the legislators can state with a straight face that privatization will improve the supply. Given the parlous state of California's water supply, one can only imagine what might have transpired if the Hunt brothers had managed to acquire ag water water supplies as they hoped back in the 1990's.<br /><br />AFAICS the main problem today, as it was in the Gilded Age, is that legislators are beholden to the super rich and will not pass legislation to reign in their excesses. We could easily raise top rates of taxes, ban tax haven accounts, limit political contributions, etc etc. But we don't, or rather the legislators won't as they know where their bread is buttered. Lessig is basically correct - change political funding and a host of other problems can be solved.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21602596372243871752014-12-24T08:18:59.713-08:002014-12-24T08:18:59.713-08:00Jumper, you changed majors when you lost enthusias...Jumper, you changed majors when you lost enthusiasm for cataloguing hand axes - totally understandable! Real archaeology is far more mundane than most people realize. It is, like any field science, about gathering data, in all its minutia. Not everybody can keep up their enthusiasm level. I got pretty bored with mountains of 1˚, 2˚ & 3˚ flakes.<br /><br />For me the draw was being a part of discovery, trying to unlock some of what makes those crazy hominids tick. But you have to be working at a fairly high level - beyond just writing CRM reports, to get much sense of that. Now, as a school teacher, the best job satisfaction I get is finding that a handful of the 150+ 15 year-olds I have to talk to every day have come away with some better understanding of the world than the simpleminded stereotypes that substitute for thinking. <br /><br />So what did you change major to? Hopefully something that is at least remunerative, something archaeology was not.Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76587659590487798812014-12-24T07:32:27.385-08:002014-12-24T07:32:27.385-08:00LarryHart
I am not going to be a downer on Christ...LarryHart<br /><br />I am not going to be a downer on Christmas but it does strike me that the children of great affluence don't always live get "comfort in perpetuity".<br /><br />They miss out on the satisfaction that comes from making their own way in the world. They seem, anecdotaly, to be more susceptible to things that give them artificial meaning...cults, substance abuse, superficial politics. And there are some very specific maladies of the affluent world. Try to explain eating disorders to an Ethiopian some time.<br /><br />Nah, its best to teach them to live below their means, to work part time for their minor luxuries.<br /><br />Kids heading home from various points of the compass. When they go off to college I give them two bits of paternal advice<br /><br />-I have worked hard to put some money away for your education/future. Here it is. That's it, make it last.<br /><br />-It is our expectation that any grandchildren of ours will be raised by two parents who are married to each other. Plan accordingly.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Tacitus<br /><br />Tacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33723672522700378322014-12-24T06:40:55.138-08:002014-12-24T06:40:55.138-08:00Laurent Weppe:
"Don't humans crave food,...Laurent Weppe:<br /><i><br />"Don't humans crave food, water, physical comforts, and sex pretty highly on the list."<br /><br />That's the thing: access to material comforts is always linked to one's position in the social hierarchy, so the core question when asserting any given social organization is, as Paul Shen-Brown noted, how rigid said hierarchy is.<br /></i><br /><br />So to me, that's what is so great about living in a first-world, Enlightenment-enabled society, or Dr Brin's "diamond shape". While those who are driven to uber-perform can acquire all sorts of wealth and power and status for themselves, there's still plenty left to go around for the satiable among us to be...well, satiated.<br /><br />What the Enlightenment apparently can't accomplish, more's the pity, is to satiate the truly pathologically-insatiable among us. Thus, as wealth multiplies exponentially, they still want it <b>all</b>. It's not enough that they and their descendents will live in comfort in perpetuity. They have to actively pursue acquiring more and more of the commons as private property, making the rest of us suffer at no appreciable additional benefit to themselves--unless the suffering of others <b>is</b> the benefit.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68240806916149464292014-12-24T06:35:57.827-08:002014-12-24T06:35:57.827-08:00I was lucky enough to take a course by Solon Kimba...I was lucky enough to take a course by Solon Kimball, who saw culture as the means of extracting energy from the environment, a pretty nuts-and-bolts approach which survives postmodern relativism. I changed majors when I later found my enthusiasm for classifications of hand axes became non-existent.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18606223086474025302014-12-23T22:00:50.227-08:002014-12-23T22:00:50.227-08:00Very nice, Tacitus! That looks like a lot of fun. ...Very nice, Tacitus! That looks like a lot of fun. The picture of the crew points to one of the things I loved about archaeology: what other outdoor job can you find where the M/F ratio among the crew is usually 50/50? It's nice because I love being outdoors, but all-male crews tend to get raunchy and overly competitive. The conversation is usually so much better when you don't have half the males butting heads or sparring verbally.<br /><br />Was the horse skull found as an IF, or was it articulated with more of the skeleton? If there were more bones, an osteologist would be able to identify cut marks from butchery, if they were eaten. I haven't had Roman history for a really long time, but I would imagine that cavalrymen would have a hard time eating their horses, regardless of the other odd critters they consumed. I don't remember ever seeing a reference to horses in sacrificial rituals, now that I think of it, so there may have been a taboo.<br /><br />My old Marshalltown sings to me from its grave...Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66247763854910862212014-12-23T20:36:08.153-08:002014-12-23T20:36:08.153-08:00Paul SB
Every spring I spend a couple of marvelou...Paul SB<br /><br />Every spring I spend a couple of marvelous weeks at Vindolanda along Hadrians Wall.<br /><br />http://detritusofempire.blogspot.com/2014/05/vindolanda-2014-day-ten-and-last.html<br /><br />Good times.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-388158321979504392014-12-23T18:49:04.698-08:002014-12-23T18:49:04.698-08:00Oh, Tacitus, in all my babbling I forgot to ask wh...Oh, Tacitus, in all my babbling I forgot to ask where you have shovel bummed. I was laid off right after 9/11, but was able to get a couple part-time digs for awhile, but not enough to raise a family on. Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77511356390492884792014-12-23T18:27:14.791-08:002014-12-23T18:27:14.791-08:00wow interesting stuff.wow interesting stuff.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6724376739633701392014-12-23T16:25:06.463-08:002014-12-23T16:25:06.463-08:00Hi Alex,
I'm glad to hear that both archaeolo...Hi Alex, <br />I'm glad to hear that both archaeology and history are becoming more firmly base din science in the U.K. I was of the impression that things may have been going in that direction 15 years ago when I was dreaming of doing my PhD there (which would have required a bank job or two). Hopefully the generations of upper-crusty antiquarians will die out and be replaced with people who are more committed to evidence than propaganda. It's probably too late for my own dream career, though.<br /><br />When I was doing my grad work in anthro, the field was in a bit of an epistemological rumpus, and had been for years. The old paradigm of Cultural Materialism, which was explicitly scientific, was being rejected by a new generation of "young turks" - much of which was careerism and the extreme end of which was completely nihilistic. Some of their criticisms were right on target and very much necessary, but the trend was to reject all vestiges of scientific discourse in favor of some pretty flakey fakery. Most of the people behind this came into their careers in the 80's. Late in the 90's I was seeing some signs that the new batch of students were rejecting the postmodern coupe and trying to create a paradigm that was positivist, but incorporated some of the more cogent criticisms of the older paradigms that had held sway through much of the 20th C. These more cogent criticisms had less to do with epistemology and more to do with the balance of explanatory power between infrastructure, structure and superstructure. It may be that the lecture you witnessed was a throwback to the postmodern moment, or maybe the pomos still hold some sway in the discipline. At the time I was in school, most of my professors had little patience with postmodernism, but it was a somewhat divided department.<br /><br />Unfortunately I can't in good conscience give you any good articles to look up, as I have been away from the field for so long, all my references would be considered outdated. Since becoming a school teacher I have not had the time to keep up. Teaching is a 27 hour a day, 9 day a week job, and on top of that I have two children with ASD. Coming to this blog has been an attempt to find a little intellectual stimulation beyond the level of your typical 15 year-old (though I can say that much of what I find on the InterNet is at about that level).<br /><br />One thing I hope you understand, though, is that in the US anthropology is not just cultural anthropology. Here anthropology has 4 subdisciplines: cultural, biological, linguistic and archaeological. Any decent program will require students to have some coursework in all 4 areas, while specializing in one. My specialization was archaeology, which I thought worked well having changed majors after 3 years in history, but I have some familiarity with the other 3 areas.Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51917085711813846102014-12-23T15:49:17.923-08:002014-12-23T15:49:17.923-08:00@ Paul Shen-Brown
My view of archaeologists and an...@ Paul Shen-Brown<br />My view of archaeologists and anthropologists is 180 degrees from yours.<br />My limited knowledge of archaeology goes back to my student days and friendships with archaeologist grad students in the UK, the odd paper I read and the occasional quality documentary. These experiences all confirm to me that archaeology as I have observed it is very much a a science now. The instance of data trashing that you referred to was egregious and would have resulted in dismissal from a science department5, but I have to wonder if it was a rare instance, like the recent stem cell debacle at the RIKEN Institute. Yes, the UK had its grand old men who were very influential, but archaeology has become increasingly science based. A notable recent example was the identification of the remains of Richard III which ultimately involved a number of disciplines. No data free explanations there.<br /><br />Conversely my experience of anthropology is largely anecdotal attending a few lectures at a UC by a head of anthropology. My impression was that conjecture was heaped on conjecture based on very little evidence at all. Alternative explanations for the findings were just ignored in favor of the per theory. I got no sense whatsoever that that the conclusions were to be seriously tested. Unlike archaeology, I don't think I have ever seen an anthropology paper in a science journal.<br /><br />Your dismissal of historians is also misplaced, IMO, as again this area has become increasingly science based as forensic evidence is increasingly being used. Historians now routinely verify provenance of documents by a variety of tests rather than relying on traditional methods. Historians also collect a lot of social data, and a cross discipline with economics has resulted in the very impressive popular book, "Capital in the 21st Century" by Thomas Piketty. <br /><br />Anthropology may have come a long way since Mead, but is it really doing science, rather than the sort of scientism often practiced by sociologists?<br /><br />Perhaps you can point me to a paper or two that you consider good anthropology, preferably one not behind a paywall, that would support your case.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64714951969079787622014-12-23T09:57:26.789-08:002014-12-23T09:57:26.789-08:00Tacitus, Deo is Greek for two. I like to mix it up...Tacitus, Deo is Greek for two. I like to mix it up a little (though I can't say I can speak any language well, I do know how to ask for the lav in Greek - oddly enough, their euphemism literally means "the place").Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43468150296835178322014-12-23T09:01:02.821-08:002014-12-23T09:01:02.821-08:00Speaking of the apocalypse, you may enjoy this art...Speaking of the apocalypse, you may enjoy this article on preppers:<br /><br />http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636611-when-civilisation-collapses-will-you-be-ready-i-will-surviveDPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60996286481424209712014-12-23T07:47:18.150-08:002014-12-23T07:47:18.150-08:00Oh, and I must second your observations on UK arch...Oh, and I must second your observations on UK archeologists. They are hyper territorial regards their "turf".<br /><br />Others do the heavy lifting, shifting the barrows and so forth. They will tell you what it all means.<br /><br />Ever has it been thus. Ever shall it be so.<br /><br />They are much like legacy media entities in some ways, not the least of which is withering contempt for amateur punditry!<br /><br />Best wishes for Christmas, Saturnalia, Solstice, Hanukkah. <br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11571872237912907972014-12-23T06:37:28.229-08:002014-12-23T06:37:28.229-08:00Paul SB
Having wielded a trowel many a time, it a...Paul SB<br /><br />Having wielded a trowel many a time, it appears we share some interests beyond SciFi.<br /><br />But Tacitus Deo is a bit of an odd variant...<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21039887526652958512014-12-23T00:14:34.500-08:002014-12-23T00:14:34.500-08:00Paul S-B email me separately. About anthro!Paul S-B email me separately. About anthro!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40529150402332938532014-12-22T19:37:04.853-08:002014-12-22T19:37:04.853-08:00Needless to say, anthropologists are not usually d...Needless to say, anthropologists are not usually drawn from the privileged classes (some are - Harvard has its department), and they are very interested in focusing on the common people. One problem, though, is that many have the attitude that they should focus their work on the earlier, smaller scale societies and ignore state-level societies, leaving anyone who built impressive architecture to the snobs. I have always thought this was a mistake. We can learn a lot about what makes humans tick from examining hunter/gatherer and tribe-level cultures, but most of the human race lives in nation states today. In some ways it would be more relevant to focus a deliberately scientific discipline on early civilizations in hopes of learning something about those dynamics that could be useful to us today. <br /><br />But most of my coworkers just thought I wanted to go hang out on beautiful little tourist-trap islands, drinking ouzo and dancing on tabletops. I would say, 'you can't win them all!' but in this case I really couldn't win any of them. But I looked at archaeology departments in England and found that many of them were requiring anthropology classes among their course requirements, so there is some hope that change will come. I just hope that there is some data left in the ground for a future generation to discover.Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29223421631062544042014-12-22T19:36:44.201-08:002014-12-22T19:36:44.201-08:00Dr. Brin,
I'm not an expert on the Maya, but ...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />I'm not an expert on the Maya, but they came up often enough. I had a class specifically in Mesoamerican archaeology, so the Maya were a pretty hot topic. As far as wheels go, there is little reason to doubt that they had them, but the Yucatan is a terrible place for preservation of organics. <br /><br />When looking at the archaeology of anywhere, it is important to know the background of the archaeologists. A majority of archaeology in the New World has been subsumed under the auspices of anthropology in the past several decades. Anthropology is explicitly scientific in orientation, unlike history, art history and historical linguistics, the other disciplines that have tended to use archaeological methods. Frankly, these other disciplines have been pretty flakey in terms of going way beyond the data in their interpretations of past cultures. To make it worse, these disciplines tend to be dominated by our feudal lords, commanding their forces from their ivy league ivory towers. <br /><br />Let me give you an example. I was sworn to secrecy on this one, so I can't name any names, as it could jeopardize the career of a coworker. This person was granted the privilege of being a lab monkey for the wife of a highly respected (and well connected) British archaeologist. They had excavated a Bronze Age site on Crete, and among the artifacts coming into the lab were scores of small pottery cups of a variety that had been known since the days of Sir Arthur Evans. However, most of these had been excavated a century ago, when we did not have useful techniques for residue analysis, so what these cups were used for was mostly conjecture. There were two competing hypotheses: some thought they were used as oil lamps, others thought they were wine cups. My coworker suggested to the Principle Investigator (the wife of Dr. High and Mighty) that they should not wash the cups, as they would have a unique opportunity to do a chemical analysis of the residues and settle the question once and for all. The PI ordered the lab crew to wash the cups and say nothing of it. My coworker did as she was ordered, and saw globs of oil rising to the surface of the wash bins the entire time. Later that year the PI published a paper of the use of those artifacts in ancient wine-drinking rituals of the ruling classes.<br /><br />In scientific terms, this is a cardinal sin. Evidence was deliberately destroyed so a member of one social class can support an interpretation that favored her own social class. I couldn't say with certainty that this never happens in anthropological archaeology, but because anthropology is guided by scientific methods, it works as a scientific community, with all the checks and balances that entails. Fortunately most archaeology in the Americas today is done under the auspices of anthropology, though the Maya have always attracted more than its fair share of quacks. If you would like to read good, scientific archaeology, go to your university library and find the Society for American Archaeology Journal. I can't imagine that SDSU or La Jolla would not have it, as this is considered the gold standard in modern archaeology. <br /><br />Paul Shen-Brownnoreply@blogger.com