Martinez Lectures (I), "What is Archaeology"?

 

            Punishing with self-righteous religiosity          

In the USA, another guy without a clue attempts to lecture us on what archaeology is. Mark Martinez (@xprofe1) says he is a "Spanish teacher, historian, and philosopher" and claims to have a B.S. in Philosophy and M.A. in History (now working on Ph.D. in History)" - website https://xprofe.com/ [inactive] There are several teachers by this name on LinkdIn. On Twitter he critiques "leftist ideologies" and champions speedy justice (pro capital punishment) "from a Christian perspective", debates archaeology and "critiques D.E.I. as a cultural weapon" (Grok profile summary). Here's what he says about (his idea of) archaeology:

Mark Martinez @xprofe1 · Apr 30

The problem with archaeology.

Archaeology is the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation and analysis of material remains such as artifacts, architecture, biofacts, and cultural landscapes. The problem with this field of study hides in plain sight: interpretative bias. Interpretative bias refers to the influence of an archaeologist’s own cultural background, worldview, training, philosophy, and even political leanings on how they understand and explain the past. Because archaeology often involves reconstructing long-lost cultures from limited evidence, interpretation plays a central role; this monumental weakness in the processes opens the door to subjective influence and biased interpretations. Interpretative bias does not delegitimize archaeology as a study, but it is an important factor to consider when evaluating the ideas, theories, conclusions, and interpretations put forth by archaeologists. We must always remember that nothing is ever according to archaeology. It is always according to the interpretations of archaeologists. Interpretations are always influenced by personal or professional biases. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased archaeologist. This applies to any individual or group of individuals engaging in archaeology, from amateurs to professionals, from individual researchers to teams and universities. All are influenced by their own personal, collective, and/or professional biases. This does not mean that we cannot trust archaeologists, it just means that we must always be vigilant that what we are being told has not been overly influenced to the point that it misrepresents facts and/or the truth. The controversy surrounding the trees at Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of interpretative bias at its worst. Go check out @BrightInsight6 for all the information regarding that controversy. It is just unbelievable.

Where to begin? "The problem with this field of study hides in plain sight" and of course that means that nobody engaged in teh field has EVER even had an inkling of this, only the non-archaeologist Martinez (with his lil' old "philosophy" degree) has any sensible thoughts about (checks notes): "interpretative bias". Where does one even start to engage with such arrogance and attempts tp "redicover the wheel" coupled with elementary school level of description of the "problem"? I encourage Mr Martinez to find a good library and immerse himself for three weeks with the works of the Post-Processual movement in real (not imaginary) archaeology. Three weeks will be enough (for anyone normal - a lot of it is difficult reading), but will only have scratched the surface of the ruminations on that topic from our Post-Processual brethren. Part of the problem is a lot of pseudo-archaeology is US-focussed, and so the "archaeology" it engages with tends to be the US variety. Let us just say that, even if Processual/New Archaeology and CRM had in its prime its followers in the west (and east) of Europe, not everybody sees our dicipline in the way the Americans have done. Three weeks Mr Martinez and we'll come back to the subject. One wonders if Martinesz sees (or not) that exactly the same "interpretive biases" apply to the "alternative" views of the past he seems to be promoting here. I would ask him to consider (honestly - in as unbiassed a fashion as he can) whether the checks and restraints on the discipline-archaeology's interpretations and conclusions are the SAME as or different from those in pseudo-archaeology? Do they operate in the same way? An honest answer would be that they do not. But the same underlying biases are there. Let Martinez try to say they are not.

There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased pseudo-archaeologist. All are influenced by their own personal and collective biases, icluding identity-forming (tribal) ones. This means that in looking at what pseudo-archaeologists claim, write and say, we must always be vigilant that what we are being told has not been overly influenced to the point that it represents misidentification and dismissal of evidence and/or the truth. Yep. The shoe fits on both feet Mr Martinez. And that is PRECISELY the reason when we see claims made by the pseudo-archaeological milieu, we assess it in terms of the evidence cited supporting it in the context of the evidence and thought proceses they dimissed through their interpretive biases, and challenge their conclusions (often wealkly framed as "hypotheses" still needing testing/ "just asking questions"). 

The next bit is entirely off topic.

The controversy surrounding the trees at Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of interpretative bias at its worst. Go check out @BrightInsight6 for all the information regarding that controversy. It is just unbelievable.

WTF? The trees were planted by the LANDOWNER, as Mr Martinez should know, the archaeologists (still less the foreign ones) are not the landowners of the site. The site is managed by the TURKISH AUTHORITIES, as Mr Martinez should know, the archaeologists (still less the foreign ones) are not the authorities managing the site. Urged by the rantings of "concerned (about their clickbait)" pseudoarchaeologists some archaeologists gave their thoughts on the trees. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wron, maybe on one side of the hoill the situation was different than on the other side of the hill. Maybe they were wrong to enter into discussion with scandal-seeking clickbait miners, in a conflict which was between them (the YouTubers and their followers) and the TURKISH AUTHORITIES. I suspect that avenue of dialogue has been definitively shut down by the pseudoarchaeological response. Nota Bene, there is no evidence that even once were the scandal mongers - notably the same Jimmy Corsetti (@BrightInsight6) mentioned so lovingly by Martinez) in direct contact with the TURKISH AUTHORITIES on this matter (or any other) - despite their professed "concern" stateside.

.