My task for this week\u2019s blog post is to evaluate two academic articles: one that I found lacking and one that I thought succeeded. I\u2019ve selected Paul Mellar\u2019s \u201cMoonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities\u201d as the article I would like to critique and William Lovis, Randolf Donahue, and Margaret Holtman\u2019s article \u201cLong-Distance Logistic Mobility as an Organizing Principle among Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System\u201d 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\u2019s 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n
A Not Entirely Pleasant Moonlit Stroll<\/u><\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Structure<\/em><\/p>\n Mellar\u2019s 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 \u201cbecome clear\u201d left me scrambling to fill in the details and draw conclusions. Though I agree that intellectual engagement is necessary when reading papers, I don\u2019t 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\u2019s argument seems founded, I would have appreciated more direction and explanation in the introduction to the paper.<\/p>\n Style<\/em><\/p>\n This paper opened with establishing Mellar\u2019s 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 \u201cthe office adjacent to Ian Hodder\u201d while also listing the numerous students he has supervised. This, coupled with bracketed asides such as \u201c(self-styled)\u201d convey a self-assured attitude that I found somewhat off-putting. I\u2019m not arguing that Mellar is not a renowned authority. However, Mellar\u2019s 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\u2019s writing remained clear.<\/p>\n Content<\/em><\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 1998 publication. I found this qualm of mine particularly interesting as I have never had an issue with author\u2019s self citing before. However, I feel as though this article, though it presented a well reasoned argument didn\u2019t present anything new. Particularly in research or review papers, I am interested in the appropriate balance between novel ideas and reiteration of important research.<\/p>\n Finally, I found that Mellar\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n A Well Marked Trek Through Archaic Michigan<\/u><\/p>\n In this article, Lovis, Donahue and Holtman apply Binford\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Structure<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Style<\/em><\/p>\n This paper is written in a rather impersonal way. This provide clarity as all statements served as support for articulated arguments. This contrasted Mellar\u2019s paper, where statements often reflected the author\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Content<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Conclusions<\/u><\/p>\n 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 \u201cfailure\u201d or \u201cbrilliance\u201d, 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\u2019s style, albeit less surprising, was well executed piece that conveyed information in a clearer way than Mellar\u2019s riskier narrative style.<\/p>\n References<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/em> 70.4: 669-693.<\/p>\n Mellar, Paul. 2009. Moonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities. Antiquity<\/em>. <\/em>83: 502-517.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" My task for this week\u2019s blog post is to evaluate two academic articles: one that I found lacking and one that I thought succeeded. I\u2019ve selected Paul Mellar\u2019s \u201cMoonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities\u201d as the … Continue reading