My task for this week’s blog post is to evaluate two academic articles: one that I found lacking and one that I thought succeeded. I’ve selected Paul Mellar’s “Moonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities” as the article I would like to critique and William Lovis, Randolf Donahue, and Margaret Holtman’s article “Long-Distance Logistic Mobility as an Organizing Principle among Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System” as the article I will celebrate. I selected these articles because they both discuss significant debates concerning Mesolithic/Archaic hunter-gatherers with preference for more parsimonious, pragmatic, and functional perspectives. Mellar’s article casts doubt on some of the ritualized narratives that have been suggested for the famed site of Starr Carr in England while Lovis, Donahue and Holtman adopt a Binfordian approach to characterizing movement and explaining the archaeological record of Middle Archaic peoples. I can’t say that I totally agree with the theoretical perspectives of either authors here. I am currently pursuing more non-site, phenomenological perspectives in my research. However, I found that the content, organization, and writing styles of these articles influenced my enjoyment and engagement. Both articles, despite my like or dislike, have contributed to my understanding of hunter-gatherer activity.
A Not Entirely Pleasant Moonlit Stroll
In this article, Mellar tackles presumptions of ritual associated with the well-preserved antlers and artefacts at the English Mesolithic site of Starr Carr. This article is best characterized as a rebuttal to post-processual scholars such as Chatterton, who have argued for highly ritualized deposition of antler points in waterlogged areas of the site. Mellar argues that simpler, functional interpretations exist for the clusters of seemingly high density artefact deposits. This argument is logically presented. However, the structure, style, and supporting content of this paper rendered my reading experience less than ideal.
Structure
Mellar’s paper contained too many elements of a mystery novel for my liking. He often alludes to conclusions the reader will be able to draw later in the piece. This became rather frustrating as some of the points were not explicitly addressed and instead left for the reader to interpret. Simply claiming that a perspective will “become clear” left me scrambling to fill in the details and draw conclusions. Though I agree that intellectual engagement is necessary when reading papers, I don’t think that by obscuring their perspective, an author detracts from rather than adding to intellectual discourse. I also found that the sub-headings beyond the introduction and conclusion were not particularly helpful. In this article, each sub-heading represented the flaws Mellar found in ritual interpretation. However, there was no indication of what the flaws may be prior to the subheadings. Furthermore, I am still unclear as the logical flow from one concern to another. Though Mellar’s argument seems founded, I would have appreciated more direction and explanation in the introduction to the paper.
Style
This paper opened with establishing Mellar’s authority in very explicit terms. Though I believe that it is important for authors to situate themselves intellectually, I find it a bit excessive for Mellar to tout his occupation of “the office adjacent to Ian Hodder” while also listing the numerous students he has supervised. This, coupled with bracketed asides such as “(self-styled)” convey a self-assured attitude that I found somewhat off-putting. I’m not arguing that Mellar is not a renowned authority. However, Mellar’s chosen style seemed to lord his intellectual superiority over the reader in such a way that I found distanced himself and his work. I did find that despite a palpable sense of attitude and consistent use of pointed descriptors, Mellar’s writing remained clear.
Content
Finally, I was frustrated by the amount of re-hashed content in this paper. Since it functions as a rebuttal to another theoretical perspective, I would have liked to see fewer references to Mellar and Dark’s 1998 co-edited volume. In many instances, Mellar relies on the evidence and arguments he has previously published without adding any new data or perspectives. This left me believing that if I desired a more detailed account of his position, I need only read Mellar’s 1998 publication. I found this qualm of mine particularly interesting as I have never had an issue with author’s self citing before. However, I feel as though this article, though it presented a well reasoned argument didn’t present anything new. Particularly in research or review papers, I am interested in the appropriate balance between novel ideas and reiteration of important research.
Finally, I found that Mellar’s paper took a staunchly functional stance. I was also frustrated by his acknowledgement that past experience likely lies between his perspective and the post-processual perspective he so strongly combats. I would have liked to see him explore new research avenues that explore this melding of ritual and function rather than simply acknowledging it without discussion. If this paper had gone in this direction, I believe I would have found it more inspirational.
A Well Marked Trek Through Archaic Michigan
In this article, Lovis, Donahue and Holtman apply Binford’s definition of logistic mobility to explain the spare representation of Middle Archaic sites in Michigan State. This article was particularly useful to me as it deals with the time period I am investigating in a region with very similar archaeology to Southern Ontario. Though this article became dry at times, it clearly conveyed its findings and perspectives while supporting its assertions with detailed examples. Though not particularly inspired, I appreciated the clarity and substantive content of this paper.
Structure
This paper clearly lays out the premises of logistic mobility and links processes of logistic mobility to limited residential sites and more dynamic landscape use. The sub-headings clearly illustrate the environmental, ethnographic, and archaeological prongs of the argument. I found this structure somewhat formulaic. However, it was clear and easy to follow.
Style
This paper is written in a rather impersonal way. This provide clarity as all statements served as support for articulated arguments. This contrasted Mellar’s paper, where statements often reflected the author’s perspective and were not necessarily supported within the text. This style was not particularly engaging. However, I find myself returning to the detailed writing for information. I appreciated how each author contributed their expertise in paleo-environmental reconstruction, ethnographic study, and British Mesolithic archaeology to the paper. However, the impersonal tone seamlessly blends the contributions of each author.
Content
The content of this paper is where I find its strength. The examples presented include sufficient background and contextual information for readers with limited familiarity in Archaic Michigan archaeology. The arguments are also presented in a large to small sequence gradually increasing in detail as readers become more familiar with the sparse archaeological record. It was nice to find an article that explicitly adopted a Binfordian concept and applied it with detail and nuance. Though I do not employ a Binfordian perspective myself, I often I find references to Binford without sufficient exploration of his ideas. It was refreshing to find such a well executed alternate perspective. The theoretical examples employed in this article were all well developed and expanded upon. Though other articles mention multiple theorists and works, there are occasions where they do not elaborate on their relevance or provide specific context. Thankfully, this was a fault that I did not find in this article. Despite a potentially predictable style, the content of this piece redeems it- and then some.
Conclusions
Going through this exercise I found that I began to question what were initially strong opinions. However, I think this speaks to the experience and accomplishments of the academics I discussed in this post. Where I had initially seen “failure” or “brilliance”, I began to see conscious choices and individual style. I am inspired by the security of both styles presented here. However, I would argue that Lovis, Donahue, and Holtman’s style, albeit less surprising, was well executed piece that conveyed information in a clearer way than Mellar’s riskier narrative style.
References
Lovis, William A., Donahue, Randolph E., and Margaret B. Holtman. 2005. Long-Distance Logistic Mobility as an Organizing Principle among Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System. American Antiquity. 70.4: 669-693.
Mellar, Paul. 2009. Moonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities. Antiquity. 83: 502-517.
Hi Beatrice!
Your post here got me thinking right away with your comment on Mellar’s mystery novel approach to writing. First, it made me think whether or not I have come across this in my readings, but then made me wonder if I have done this unconsciously in my writing. I know I have consciously thought “Oh no, I better not give it all away in the introduction, or the introductory paragraph to a section” but I have never thought of sounding too, well, mysterious. Needless to say, I will now be keeping my eyes open for this!
I find it a little crazy the Mellar actually takes such a ostentatious approach to establish his authority. I don’t think I have seen anything like this in papers I have read. I feel that while establishing an authoritative voice can be essential at times, there are other ways to go about this.
You mention in reference to Lovis and co.’s paper that while formulaic in structure the paper was still strong. I found the same thing in the paper I chose to praise. While it may be the cookie-cutter paper format, it is so for a reason, despite potentially being a little boring for the reader. Such patterns in writing, I find, make it easier to comprehend and digest becuase I know what to expect, just like how a good introduction will do the same (unlike with Mellar’s subheadings!).
Cheers!
Like Taylor, I loved the description of the article as a mystery novel. And like you, I think that would irritate me. When I was writing my blog, I found the approach I like is: tell me what you’re going to do, and then do it. It seems so simple, but it really makes a difference. I don’t want a mystery novel in my articles – it might work in a presentation, or other forms of media, but for me, it doesn’t work in a peer-reviewed article. So it really seems as though Mellar skipped this first step, of telling me what you’re going to do.
I do appreciate, however, that you initially saw as brilliance or failure, was more likely individual choice and stylistic preference. While I’m writing for publication, I’m semi-conscious of the style and preference of the editor, but definitely writing with my own style. Do you think Mellar would continue to write in this way if he were to publish in another journal? Or for another medium (i.e. a blog)? Would Lovis et al.?
Hi Beatrice,
I have a question that was not addressed in your blog post: how did you select your articles? For example, I had to think about a way to find both a successful and a failed piece without suffering through hours of trial and error on an online database. My relatively simple solution was to use the ‘cited-by’ function on Google.Scholar. Although the process was not so straightforward (I go into detail in my blog post), I sifted through heavily cited articles to find a successful one (almost all were), and less than abundantly cited articles to find a weak one. That was my strategy, but how did you go about it? Had you perhaps read the articles ahead of time and simply knew which was strong and which was weak from memory? Did you just happen to stumble upon two articles that hit either end of spectrum on your first search? Or, did you have to look at many articles (i.e. trial and error) before you found a ‘strong’ and a ‘weak’ one? I am just curious as to what your process entailed.
Cheers,
-PaleoBaron
Hi Beatrice,
Like Taylor and Creighton, I found it interesting that you discussed Mellar’s mystery novel approach to writing. I see this as a possible lesson for our own writing: a need to provide sufficient information and outline of our points to sufficiently support a thesis. A thesis should not leave the reader questioning or guessing, like a mystery novel, but it should be authoritative, like an edict. As academic writers, we are trying to prove something so we should be assertive (something we have previously discussed in class). As a student, I know I have often been vague in my introductions sometimes using the dreaded passive voice with constructions like “will become clear” to downplay my own culpability if someone disagrees with my thesis.
Finally, I am wondering if you can elaborate on Mellar’s intellectual background when you reference that he has “the office adjacent to Ian Hodder.” I have never read an article that uses this style to explain their theoretical perspectives. Perhaps this is naïve interdisciplinary question, but is it common for archaeologists to explicitly proclaim working at the same university, or across the hall from a specific scholar in archaeology? In socio-cultural and medical anthropology, these claims are done implicitly through reference to certain scholar’s theories, and methodologies.
~Chris