- This topic has 6 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
I think that removing bias/judgment is permissible when studying other cultures. But I think the quote I took was in response to anthropologists who do more than just “study”. In other words, when they try to draw conclusions to be applied to our own society. E.g.:"Primitive societies believe that X is responsible for Y, and X is really manipulated by the witch doctor as a means of maintaining socio-economic power within the tribe; in our own society, we have something similar to X which is thought to be responsible for Z, but this is really irrational at its foundation...."Something like that.
Okay here's the deal and beef we historians should have about anthropologists. It is the anthropologist's job to uncover or unravel the gaps in data concerning human origins and social evolution (by evolution I mean the dynamics of human interaction over time), but it is not their job to present the history of man afterwards. Once archaeologists have uncovered lost data, they need to turn it over to the historian for him to present the history. It is not the place of the anthropologist to tell the story no more than it is for the CSI field agent to try the case in court. I think I made that point earlier, but I can't stress it enough. Pre-history is all theory and not the direct interest of historians. We are perfectly capable of interpreting the raw data once it becomes part of the available record. So nanny nanny boo boo. 🙂
