|
Derek, I had expected a little more from you, but I will take what I can get, since it is late:-)...Anthropology is biased to suppose that primitive societies are somehow more authentic. It is rife with shoddy field work, reflecting the "ideals" of the researchers, and even careful field work is not likely to get at the actual complexities of a social group. For example, who does the diligent anthropologist get as an informant on religious beliefs and practices? Why, the local priest or shaman, because he is the most knowledgeable. However, he is also the least representative of the actual cultural function of those beliefs and practices. The researcher should be scouting out the "average parishioner"...But even supposing that that problem is solved, there is the problem of identify the prevalence of skepticism within the society (which might be an evolving figure, by the way), or finding someone willing to admit to being the village atheist. And then there is the problem of lack of self- conscious reflection on the part of the informants. They can't tell you how it all hangs together, and it is often not apparent from an overview of the data. So, is anthropology interesting? Sure...Might some insights be gleaned? Perhaps...But does it repay close attention? Probably not... A fortiori, archeology and human paleontology (a more accurate designation for your Amerindian discussion) are even less rewarding, since the evidence is even more fragmentary and opaque... |
