3 ms·

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not making an argument (ie I'm not claiming this to prove anything), I'm remarking on a pattern that I see recur, and an examp

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not making an argument (ie I'm not claiming this to prove anything), I'm remarking on a pattern that I see recur, and an example in this article that sparked my interest. Not every comment is an argument, and not every discussion needs to be a debate. I think it's interesting that conspiracy theory tropes seem to recur very reliably over time. I have an interest in this topic and when I'm reading about it, I find there's a lot of rhyming. Conspiracism and exploded scientific hypothesis are quite different in nature. They're "wrong" in quite different ways. I recently made a comment addressing this and it might interest you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34186172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34186172 To your last point, origin myths are a claim about religious truth, not scientific truth. You can't meaningfully compare statements from different epistemologies like that.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
I take your point about origin myths and epistemology, but the original article makes repeated points about the First Peoples being left out of the debate. So how would they be left IN? Would the archeological community say to them, respectfully, "Our evidence is that First Peoples arrived from Siberia somewhere between 20,000 - 10,000 BCE. What do you think?" So what would their reaction be? Would it be: 1) We don't know; our myths don't go back that far; you tell US, or 2) You are a colonialist to even talk about this. ??
- maxbond 4y ago
  I don't have all the answers, and I certainly can't react on behalf behalf of First Peoples (and even if that were my ethnicity, I could of course still only respond on my own behalf, as they are not a monolith), but I think the answer lies somewhere in the tension between archeologists & anthropologists taking native people seriously, native people becoming archaeologists & anthropologists & being respected as colleagues, and having the humility to accept that some peoples feel like we've lost their trust & aren't entitled to the pieces of the puzzle they may have (a legitimate and frankly understandable position).
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    > native people becoming archaeologists & anthropologists & being respected as colleagues Has that in fact happened? > we've lost their trust & aren't entitled to the pieces of the puzzle they may have That would be unfortunate, but if you're an anthropologist who'd like to solve the puzzle, what should you do?
    - maxbond 4y ago
      > Has that in fact happened? Certainly. I've heard of some native archaeologists, but I'll confess I'm not super up on the topic. > If you're an anthropologist who'd like to solve the puzzle, what should you do? Well, if you're an anthropologist, and some group of people makes it very clear they aren't a puzzle & won't be studied (say, the people of Sentinel Island) - go do something else maybe? Curiosity doesn't entitle you to answers, there's plenty of other stuff for an anthropologist to do. I feel like the first rule of anthropology is, "respect the culture you're studying and take it seriously," and if what they're telling you is "mind your business" - well, listen. Returning to Sentinel Island, we might not know why they don't want to talk to us, but they've made it abundantly clear that the lines of communication are closed. Surely we could spy on them from satellites, drop surveillance devices from helicopters, et cetera, and start to understand their culture that way. For that matter, we could create some sort of arrow-proof vehicle and overpower their efforts to repel us. But why should be? Just because we're curious about them? Why should we privilege our curiosity over their clear desire to be left alone?
      - Cupertino95014 4y ago
        Sentinel Island is of more limited interest than "when did homo sapiens arrive in the Americas?" though.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Sure, but there's also many threads to tug on there, you doing need to demand any particular person or group share what they know with you if they don't want to. You can break out your map and start looking for promising sites. And if they are interested in sharing their oral tradition with you, and you sneer at it - well, they might rescind your invitation.

Cupertino95014 4y ago

I take your point about origin myths and epistemology, but the original article makes repeated points about the First Peoples being left out of the debate. So how would they be left IN? Would the archeological community say to them, respectfully, "Our evidence is that First Peoples arrived from Siberia somewhere between 20,000 - 10,000 BCE. What do you think?" So what would their reaction be? Would it be: 1) We don't know; our myths don't go back that far; you tell US, or 2) You are a colonialist to even talk about this. ??

maxbond 4y ago
I don't have all the answers, and I certainly can't react on behalf behalf of First Peoples (and even if that were my ethnicity, I could of course still only respond on my own behalf, as they are not a monolith), but I think the answer lies somewhere in the tension between archeologists & anthropologists taking native people seriously, native people becoming archaeologists & anthropologists & being respected as colleagues, and having the humility to accept that some peoples feel like we've lost their trust & aren't entitled to the pieces of the puzzle they may have (a legitimate and frankly understandable position).
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  > native people becoming archaeologists & anthropologists & being respected as colleagues Has that in fact happened? > we've lost their trust & aren't entitled to the pieces of the puzzle they may have That would be unfortunate, but if you're an anthropologist who'd like to solve the puzzle, what should you do?
  - maxbond 4y ago
    > Has that in fact happened? Certainly. I've heard of some native archaeologists, but I'll confess I'm not super up on the topic. > If you're an anthropologist who'd like to solve the puzzle, what should you do? Well, if you're an anthropologist, and some group of people makes it very clear they aren't a puzzle & won't be studied (say, the people of Sentinel Island) - go do something else maybe? Curiosity doesn't entitle you to answers, there's plenty of other stuff for an anthropologist to do. I feel like the first rule of anthropology is, "respect the culture you're studying and take it seriously," and if what they're telling you is "mind your business" - well, listen. Returning to Sentinel Island, we might not know why they don't want to talk to us, but they've made it abundantly clear that the lines of communication are closed. Surely we could spy on them from satellites, drop surveillance devices from helicopters, et cetera, and start to understand their culture that way. For that matter, we could create some sort of arrow-proof vehicle and overpower their efforts to repel us. But why should be? Just because we're curious about them? Why should we privilege our curiosity over their clear desire to be left alone?
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      Sentinel Island is of more limited interest than "when did homo sapiens arrive in the Americas?" though.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        Sure, but there's also many threads to tug on there, you doing need to demand any particular person or group share what they know with you if they don't want to. You can break out your map and start looking for promising sites. And if they are interested in sharing their oral tradition with you, and you sneer at it - well, they might rescind your invitation.