cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > The greater part of his professional career in
> > archaeology took place during the 20th century.
>
>
> > Need I point out how unserious this is? More
> > realistic would be to note that Petrie retired
> > less than one century ago.
>
> Most people learn almost nothing outside their
> fields of expertise after their formal education.
> Indeed, even the methodology, epistemology, and
> metaphysics are mostly set even before college.
> Most of us are a product not only of our place but
> of our time and that time is usually defined by
> out final years of formal schooling. Petrie was
> very much a product of the 19th century.

You talk about “most” people and then jump to Petrie. I see no justification for this move. Petrie was clearly exceptional in precisely the respects cited.

He had essentially no formal schooling. He never went to school. Depends how formal his father was.

He was an innovator in his field. From the age of eight (8) he was a strong critic of archaeology (or antiquarianism) as he found it.

On the argument you outline (which mistakes most for all), there can be no innovation or progress, so what does it matter if something “is a product of” the 19th century (or the 18th, or the 17th)?

> But this is hardly the point. The point is that
> for most practical purposes Egyptology (no matter
> how you define it) is a product of the 19th
> century. They have not changed and grown with the
> times. They have not embraced modern technology
> or even mathematics. This isn't Petrie's fault.
> This is the fault of Egyptology that is afraid of
> the pyramid.

Yeah, sure, they’re all still communicating by quill-written letter. They ride horses everywhere. They never use (or develop) specialist software. Etc.

Some fields “embrace” mathematics to show how scientific they are and end up the opposite. Economics?

Have you ever read an article in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology? A yes-or-no answer would be preferred.

Supplementary question: have you read much 19th-century material? One would think that you must have, to be so confident that you know what a product of the era is like.

M.