From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 10:47:57 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Oct13.005826.21868@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

 >   It is only from pure arrogance that you should make such a brash
 > assumption that I have not bothered to read any of the literature--
 > and that the literature in and of itself is not sufficient for 
 > an anthroplogical "field study"(as many other anthropoligists have
 > used literature as a means of study as well).

You waded in here with clear and unambiguous statements of what
Anthropology is and what it is not. All that has been asked of you
amongst all this verbiage is to support your statements with facts,
which you have still failed to do. Instead you have launched into
attacks on your critics from completely foreign premises.

 >         On the contrary, my study of anthropology, using valid
 > anthropological means, seems to be bringing about the hostility
 > of at least one of them.

You have not demonstrated any methodological validity whatsoever, and
your report is most certainly unreliable even on the basis of the
limited response from other Anthropologists posting to this group.
Even the data from this small sample has produced opposite results to
those you predicted, and I would certainly not recommend that you put
resources into surveying a larger sample.

 >   Perhaps YOU are not interested in the philosophical analysis
 > of the term "anthropology"; however, there seem to be enough

No philosophical analysis of any term whatever has anything to do with
Anthropology. It is a work of Philosophy.

 > other anthropologists (who might be offended by your use of the "we")

The practice of Anthropology has a clear understanding of who its members
are, and who are not; what they do, and how they do it. Whoever might
or might not be offended by anything at all remains to be seen. I will
accept from you evidence of who actually is, and who actually is not.
You will need here too to conduct an appropriately validated survey to
gather such data and I welcome your further analysis and discussion.

 > who seemed concerned.  It is obvious that you feel I have stepped
 > on your toes, but I am interested in the theoretical implications
 > of this field which, of course, involves the study of papers
 > written by those who work in the field.

Neither is literary exegesis per se, Anthropology.

 >   And it seems very strange that you do not consider my study of
 > the "texts of anthropolgy" as a type of field study.  After all,

Yes, I must confess that some of us do tend to get a mite strange
after a few years. Along with our beards and rough bush clothes our
eccentricities mark us as Anthropologists back among the cloistered
halls of academe, where even greater eccentrics appear to join us
in celebrating the getting of knowledge . . .

 > it certainly seems that anthropologists themselves look to texts
 > of various societies to learn more about them.  Hence, I see
 > that your arguement of inability to present field evidence as

Yes, of course we do. But what the reader receives from the books is
an entirely different order of knowledge from that the ethnographer
receives from informants and subsequently writes up, apparently for
your philosophical study of theoretical implications. Heaven help us,
is that the end result of it all?

 > utterly vacuous.  I do not feel that it is my place to regurgitate
 > particular citations in support of general categories.  Of course,

Regurgitate!!!???? I want you to. Please go ahead with whatever data
or evidence you can muster. Even general citations to support your
general categories would be welcome.

 > you have not provided any "field evidence" to negate my claim either--
 > nor do I suspect that you will because I am certain that you have
 > plenty of other things to do.

What do you want to know about Aboriginal Australia, specifically? I
have spent 35 years with these people and the field is my specialty.
Fire away, mate, I have nothing else to do right now different from
what I am doing anyway.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands