Friday 28 June 2013

Updated Update on Pending Movement toward the 49th parallel

Thank you for your patience during this time of protracted, 
maximum physical strain on your favourite subversive. 

To coin a phrase, "I'm knackered!" 

 My life is presently


I'll be pulling up stakes on Monday at about 1600 UTC, 
taking the coast road north to the 49th parallel.

There I'll plant my flag.

I'll get back to you some time on Monday.

I'm looking forward to continuing this romp through the rocky crags of archaeological inference.

Soon. Sooner, if possible!

ANY TIME IS A GOOD TIME TO GET GOOD STUFF AT THE SUBVERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S OWN, EXCLUSIVE "A DRINK IS LIKE A HUG" ONLINE BOUTIQUE

SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.

Wednesday 19 June 2013

Update. Walmart Doesn't Just Screw The Employee. Walmart Screws You And Me, Too! In the U.S. it takes $2,878,252,644 a year in public services needed to help support Walmart employees.

I don't often venture this far off the topic, as it's usually construed. This is an archaeology blog, first, and a general anthropology blog second. As such, this essay might easily be mistaken as just a social comment from a political progressive, and not an anthropological paper. I call myself a political progressive. But, of course we politically progressive commentators are known to other subsets of this society as 'bleeding-heart liberals,' tree-huggers,' or worse, 'dirty fucking hippies' [in the blogosphere we self-identify as DFHs to keep the language suitable for all audiences, and at the same time to illustrate the chasm between us and those who'd call us that].

So, although this blurt may appear like a quirky Op-Ed in an otherwise 
serious and august news magazine or blog, as many of you are aware anthropology is sometimes seen as an informed critique of ideology and the contradictions of capitalism, as Marx constructed it. In Hegel and Marx's Dialectical Materialism a 'contradiction' can be characterized as a diametrical 'opposition' that exists within an entity. For example, the single most important contradiction in capitalism is that
(a) enormous wealth and productive powers coexist alongside
(b) extreme poverty and misery.
The existence of (a) is contrary to the existence of (b)
Indeed, many Marxist-inspired postmodern anthropologists maintain that their primary role should be to expose the contradictions inherent in a capitalist ideology. Radical postmodern deconstructionists would say it doesn't matter what I say---only what they say matters. Less rigorously political postmodern anthropologists like me talk about 'reflexivity' as a way to work around the empirically supported notion that "an individual's own perspectives are shaped by his or her experiences," thus ruling out absolute objectivity, and replacing it with a "mitigated" objectivity.

[Thanks, Alison, for throwing that lifeline  to those of us still fumbling around in aid of the scientific project.]

So, rather than being merely an 'opinion' piece, I intend this to be an argument, from evidence, against the widely held notion that
a) the super rich deserve to be that way because they create the jobs that you and I can fill so that we can get along in this world,
b) that all of us are the shapers of our own fate, and
c) that the rich and powerful in this country have every right to howl about the less economically successful who, it's claimed, expect handouts that we net taxpayers shouldn't have to support.
[A tip o' the hat to Upworthy for pointing the way to this juicy bit of empirical evidence for my argument. Apparently the Walton family, 49% owners of the publically traded Walmart, are making an obscene amount of money not just off the backs of their unfortunate employees, but you and me as well---even if we never set foot in a Walmart and thereby increase their profits.]

Let's first take a look at the paramount pillar of American capitalist ideology---that every individual, regardless of background is as capable as any other person to make something out of themselves all by themselves, without resorting to the kindness of strangers [i.e. government handouts, startup loans, etc.].

The founder of Walmart was Sam Walton, shown here in his high school graduation portrait. But Walton's success didn't start with Walmart. There was quite a history of Sam's rise from share-cropper's son farmer's son to retailing wizard. The following snapshot of Walmart's progenitor is heavily drawn from the Wikipedia article on Sam Walton. I don't take it as gospel. The references cited in the article convince me that, if one wanted to 'ground truth' the substance of the Wikipedia article it would be easy enough to do so. I invite anyone dissenting from my interpretations to undertake the research to prove me and Wikipedia wrong.
Sam Walton was born ... in Kingfisher, Oklahoma. There, he lived with his parents on their farm until 1923. Sam's father decided farming did not generate enough income on which to raise a family and decided to go back to a previous profession of farm mortgaging where he repossessed farms during the Great Depression [emphasis added].
[Is it just me, or does the phrase "repossessed farms during the Great Depression" leave a seriously bad taste in your mouth?]
[Sam] ... Walton ... attended the University of Missouri as a ROTC cadet [emphasis added].
[I might be going out on a limb, here. Never mind. Been here before. Isn't it the case that your tax dollars fund the university education of cadets in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)? Everybody takes such 'gifts' for granted, especially given that there's a quid pro quo whereby the Armed Forces get years of service in return. It seems like a fair exchange. Except that we, the taxpayers, pay for the education and the armed services get years of free service. It wasn't very many years before Walton's ROTC experience that soldiers were required to provide their own uniforms and weapons, to say nothing of serving for no pay. So, from the point of view little old me, Walton's experience resembles one of those 'government handouts' that his future lions of business would decry, while we to take for granted his publicly funded opportunity as the natural way of things, given the perceived need for America's hugely expensive military.]
During this time, he worked various odd jobs, including waiting tables in exchange for meals [emphasis added]. 
[This is what's known as 'barter,' and unless it is reported to the US government as income, using the fair market value of the goods or services received, it's illegal (see below). In the late 1930s there would have been no systemic imperative to compel Walton to engage in barter with his employer. There was no shortage of money in circulation and inflation was low (between 0.17% and 2.17% during the four years of his time at Old Miss. Moreover, by that time social security taxes were well entrenched in the economy. Thus, it may well have been bargain made to avoid paying income tax, on Walton's part, and social security taxes on his employer's. More data would be needed before such a conclusion could be supported.] 
Straight from the horse's mouth [the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, that is].
Continuing with the Wikipedia coverage...
Walton joined J.C. Penney as a management trainee ... three days after graduating from college [in 1940]. In 1945, after leaving the military, Walton took over management of his first variety store at the age of 26. With the help of a $20,000 loan from his father-in-law [emphasis added], plus $5,000 he had saved from his time in the Army [emphasis added], Walton purchased a Ben Franklin variety store in Newport, Arkansas.
[Now, good for Sam to have saved $5,000 from about four years of service, leaving at the rank of Captain! Hang on a minit ....  The sum of $5,000 in 1945 expressed in 2013 U.S. dollars would be about $75,650. Hmm. That's a very nice nest egg, even in today's economy! Well done, Sam!!! But, as Ricky Ricardo repeatedly intoned in the revered 1950s television sit-com I Love Lucy, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!" Sam Walton, you got some 'splainin' to do! In today's U.S. Army, Captains in their fourth year of service are paid $4,951.80/month, or $59,421.60 per annum. So, how in Sam Hill did Sam Walton manage to save the 2013 equivalent of $75,650. That amounts to his saving a year and a quarter's pay in four years. That's impressive! But then, I guess it was pretty hard to spend money in Salt Lake City in the early 40s, living in a house paid for by the taxpayers, even if he was supporting a wife for the last two and a child, too, for the last of four years. Data from http://www.military-ranks.org/army/captain-pay.
[In 1950] ... [Sam], his wife Helen and his father ... negotiate the purchase of a new location ... on the condition that he get a 99-year lease ... . ... his father-in-law [emphasis added] ... paid the shop owner ... $20,000 to secure the lease [emphasis added].
[I'm pretty sure that's what's known as baksheesh. Most CEOs today would consider it a serious transgression of business ethics. I'm not sure it was ever seen as the proper way to conduct business, here or anywhere else.] 
In 1954, [Sam] opened a store with his brother Bud [emphasis added] ... With the help of his brother, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, Sam went on to open many new variety stores. ... He encouraged his managers to invest and take an equity stake in the business, often as much as $1000 in their store, or the next outlet to open.
[I don't usually resort to innuendo. However, given Sam Walton's dismal record of playing straight with his employees, use of the word "encouraged" in this context might be a bit charitable, if not disingenuous.]
Say what you want about some of my interpretations of Walton's break-making. You can't deny that self-starter Sam Walton SIMPLY COULD NOT HAVE MADE HIS FORTUNE without considerable help from the taxpayers, his father, his father-in-law, his brother, and the store managers whom he 'encouraged' to invest capital in very stores he owned and they merely managed. So much for the pillar of American capitalist ideology---that all of us are the shapers of our own fate, that all we need to succeed is deep-down personal integrity and hard work.

Okay. Where does that leave you and me, who, like Sam Walton, managed to wend our way through the horribly inequitable publicly funded school system and set out to tame the world at the age of 18? Well, unlike Sam, we can't all be in the ROTC and get our university education paid for by taxpayers. We can all get really good grades if we work hard despite the public school system's inequities. However, we're not all going to get free-ride scholarships at public OR private universities. What of us, who are unable to afford a university education, no matter how good we are, no matter how hard-working we are? We're left with just our high-school graduation to flash in front of prospective employers as evidence of our hard-working-ness and desire to better ourselves. Some of us will parlay the high school diploma into a job in the public service. Those who are lucky enough to find employment in federal and state agencies are 'fairly well' taken care of, compared with most in the private sector. But high-school graduates can't all get jobs in the public service, especially in these days of fewer jobs thanks to capitalist economists and their inhumane cuts in government spending. So, we're left to find jobs in the private sector. With just a high-school education, and no hope of getting further education, no matter how much we'd like to be doctors or lawyers, we're a little limited. Some of us can learn a trade. Some of those can get a decent paying job. But we can't all be plumbers and carpenters, electricians and sheet-metal workers. And, oddly enough, not all of us aspire to such jobs. After all, some of wanted to be engineers or computer scientists.

Back to finding work in the private sector with just a high school diploma. Odds are that more of us will work for Walmart than any other private employer, given that it's the largest private-sector employer in the U.S. You're probably also aware that they're one of the most profitable companies in the U.S., if not in the world. Walmart is such a money spinner that it became a publicly traded company. However, the company is not run by the shareholders, in the common use of the term. That's because the Walton family retain almost a 50% interest. That virtually ensures that what the Walton family says, goes.

Ok. It's not good news for this country's capitalist ideology that Sam Walton's pre-Walmart success wasn't his own doing. Worse, the Walton family continues to make obscene profits on the backs of poorly paid and poorly treated employees. That's bad for the ideology, all by itself. But there's much worse. Today we discover that the Waltons and the other shareholders couldn't be nearly as successful if they didn't have considerable help from taxpayers like you and me.

That's preposterous! you say. What could the Subversive Archaeologist possibly be talking about?

Well, I'm talking about a May 2013 report from the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which is chaired by a Democrat. The report used the nation's most recently collected data on the use of publicly funded social services by working people. I said working people. These are no freeloaders in this report. These data track the employers of those who benefit from social services even though they have jobs. These data relate to people who have jobs at Walmart.

Walmart is also notoriously unkind to its employees. It pays minimum wage, refuses to allow unions in its operation, and even makes it hard for its employees to obtain full-time positions in the company.

These data come from Wisconsin. That state calculated a low and a high estimate for the range and cost of services it provides to Walmart employees. The estimates you see below are for the public cost of providing services to people with jobs AT JUST ONE WALMART STORE having about 300 employees. You'll notice that the lower estimate is $904,542 a year---ALMOST A MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS FOR JUST 300 WALMART EMPLOYEES!!!!---and the upper estimate is $1,744,590 for the same period and the same number of beneficiaries.
From The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart’s low wages and their effect on taxpayers and economic growth. An update to the 2004 report: “Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Cal-Mart.” Prepared by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, May 2013. [Superscripts refer to notes beginning on page 17 and continue through page 19.]
[This next paragraph was added at 01:07 UTC 2013.06.19]
I guess it goes without saying that there are 50 states in the U.S. There are 3,182 Walmart Superstores in the U.S. All employ around 300 employees, and thus those states are likely to bear a similar public burden due to Walmart's low wages across the country and their heinous employee relations. Even at the low end of the Wisconsin PER-STORE estimates, that comes out to $2,878,252,644 paid out of your pockets to help support the employees that Walmart could very easily afford to look after properly.

These data point up two egregious wrongs that are entwined in U.S. capitalist ideology. First, there is a public cost for paying low wages to private sector, indeed any, workers. Second, despite the taken-for granted ideology of capitalism, the super rich get that way only because they create predominantly low-paying jobs. You and I must settle for the low-paying jobs they create and no amount of self-starting, hard-working effort is going to raise our standard of living, with, or without, a public 'handout.'

And finally, the rich and powerful in this country have no earthly right to complain about the less economically successful who, it's claimed, expect handouts from taxpayers when they should be able to get along all right all on their own, regardless of economic circumstances or social station.

Thus, there's only one word for U.S. capitalist ideology. It's




ANY TIME IS A GOOD TIME TO GET GOOD STUFF AT THE SUBVERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S OWN, EXCLUSIVE "A DRINK IS LIKE A HUG" ONLINE BOUTIQUE

SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.

Wednesday 5 June 2013

Chazan's Amazin' Tunnel Vision: Truly A Chip Off The Old Block Of Bordes's Palaeolithic Typology.

This is the story of the Finished Artifact Fallacy (FAF). It's incessant mission: to infer strange new lithic technologies and new behavioural inferences: to boldly go where no palaeolithic archaeologist has gone before.

"Butchering with small tools: the implications of the Evron Quarry assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus," by Michael Chazan. Antiquity 87:350–367,  2013. 

From "Butchering with small tools: 
the implications of the Evron Quarry 
assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus," 
by Michael Chazan. Antiquity 87:350–367,  2013.
Allright. I know. I'm a Star Trek fan. And it's probably very geeky to make an analogy between the FAF and the starship Enterprise's mission. Sometimes I just can't help myself!

My paean to Star Trek was inspired by the just-published, peer-reviewed, "Butchering with small tools: the implications of the Evron Quarry assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus," by Michael Chazan. Antiquity 87:350–367,  2013. It may bear the Good Housekeeping Seal, but it is, fundamentally, flawed. The author, together with the Antiquity editors and referees ought to be charged with false and misleading advertising!

The intellectual earthquake that this paper represents cannot be underestimated. From it, we learn that "[s]mall tools are emerging as a common element of the Early Stone Age/Lower Palaeolithic toolkit ... . On Oldowan sites, including Omo 57, Omo 123, Wonderwerk Cave and Sterkfontein, flakes under 20mm in maximum dimension [averaging between 22.2 mm and 37.9 mm] are a major component of the assemblage and an intentional product of knapping ... " [emphasis added]. Remember that last phrase. It becomes important further down.

Me, trying to wrap my
brain around this argument.
What's wrong with me? I should be ecstatic that a palaeolithic archaeologist recognizes the central importance of flakes in the Oldowan and later technologies. But alas, my euphoria is still born. The author adheres to the old school of palaeolithic typology when he classifies some of the chipped stone pieces from Evron Quarry "choppers" and "polyhedrons." And, in a stunning bit of 'doublespeak' the author  proceeds to re-re-reify the notion of the 'hand-axe.' According to Chazan, small flakes predominate at Evron Quarry as an "adaptation of local materials that make poor hand axes." Translation: Homo erectus was predisposed to make 'hand axes,' but couldn't. So they used flakes by themselves as a substitute for 'hand axes.' Those flakes, he argues, "reflect a level of conceptual thought [i.e. "an ingenious improvisation on the part of Homo erectus"] that allowed the occupants of Evron Quarry to solve the problem of how to butcher an elephant using only the material at hand." 

Almost takes your breath away. Don't it? Wait a sec. Isn't the material "at hand" always the only material 'at hand?' If those H. erecti were so clever, why didn't they walk a few kliks and find better material? After all, one of the site's early excavators declared the assemblage to be an artifactual accumulation of many temporally separate events. If that were true, surely during one of the times the H. erecti were elsewhere, they could have picked up some better material to take back to the quarry. [BTdub, that would be the Lower Palaeolithic equivalent of carrying coals to Newcastle!] Unless... No. Of course! I've got it! εὕρηκα! The explanation: at each of the times those bipedal apes left chipped rock on the ground at Evron Quarry, it was because they had just spotted [or caught a whiff of] the rotting carcass of an elephant. And, logically, fearful that the meat would be thoroughly spoiled if they spent time wandering around the countryside looking for the best raw material to make a 'hand axe' with which to butcher said carcass, they instead used whatever was 'at hand.' Nah. We should just take Michael Chazan's word for it. Or not.

Do I really think Chazan is asking us to accept such a monumental shortcoming on the part of H. erectus? Evidently. But I'm not sure the author even realizes how badly this looks for an "ingenious" species like H. erectus. Even if that were its only shortcoming this paper would be an "archaeological howler." But, buried in the data presentation there's an even more fundamental error in thinking.

As if the author's effusive praise for the quick-thinking H. erecti wasn't comic enough when viewed in terms of my [half] facetious scenario, we learn that indeed there are 'hand axes' in the Evron assemblage. But these "are all very thick," and "[u]nfortunately no complete handaxes were found in the excavation" [emphasis mine, SA]. Hmmm. In a minit I'll be showing you the 'hand axes' from the quarry site. There were apparently quite a few, only no "complete" ones came from the three test pits that Chazan used as his sample, which he refers to as "the excavation."

I'm reading between the lines, here. I'm guessing that Chazan refers to the Evron Quarry 'hand-axes' (those shown below) as "thick," to imply that they haven't been 'thinned' enough. They haven't been thinned enough, says he, because the local raw material was shite. He's willing to admit that they're 'hand axes,' all right. But they're crappy ones. So, if the Evron Quarry 'hand axes,' 'choppers' and the 'polyhedrons' were desired end products, where did all the flakes come from? Surely not from the 1.7% (15/845) of the assemblage that he calls 'cores!'

It's like this. Were he to entertain the notion that the 'choppers,' 'polyhedrons' and 'hand axes' were among the 'cores' that gave birth to the abundant small flakes, he would also have to consider the possibility that all the other 'hand axes' in all the sites, in all the world, are, after all, just cores. And that would naturally lead to the realization---the reality that dare not speak its name---might well be just a fantasy that exists only in the mind of [admittedly a great many] archaeologists. A reified category. In plain English, the 'hand axe'---the 'mental template' supposedly in the mind of its maker, the 'desired' end product, the 'finished' artifact---is fallacious! Shiver my timbers!

The FAF would be nothing to worry about, were it not that, where the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic are concerned, its perpetuation is a pernicious and persistent obstacle to a better understanding of our origins. [IMHO, of course.] Now, let's take a closer look at Michael Chazan's argument. First, though, let's look at the Evron Quarry 'hand axes' that didn't appear in the author's "excavation."

"Butchering with small tools: the implications of the Evron Quarry assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus," by Michael Chazan. Antiquity 87:350–367,  2013. 
When is a 'hand axe' not a 'hand axe?' When it's a core, of *cough* course! Remember that I can only imagine the following scenario if you first accept the author's assertion that these 'hand axes' are ugly. So, on we go. If you peruse the above montage, you'll notice that many of the flake scars on the 'hand axes' are on the order of 20 to 30 mm. That, coincidentally, was the range of sizes for site's entire modified flake assemblage---the assemblage in which things called cores are thin on the ground, to say the least. Now, if one were to use Occam's Razor, rather than Bordes's typology, the logical explanation for the origin of said flakes is, most likely, those very 'hand axes,' the 'choppers,' and the 'polyhedrons.' [There is the possibility to apply a bit of hypothesis testing of the empirical kind with respect to my scenario... With only a few hundred pieces of rock, an enterprising archaeologist might try seeing if any of the useful small flakes could be refitted to the block of rock whence it came.]   

Check out the image below. The author calls these "pieces [of rock] ... [bits that are] associated with handaxe manufacture" [emphasis added]. Isn't it odd that, instead of calling them something like 'hand axe fragments"he chooses to call them [things] "associated with handaxe manufacture?" Why can't he just call a spade a spade? Why can't he see that these, too, are cores, not quasi 'hand axes' bits? He has told us that the numerous flakes themselves were " ... an intentional product of knapping ... ." Where does that leave the 'hand axes?' The author's answer is that they simply weren't there in the numbers that should be expected in a Lower Palaeolithic elephant butchering theatre. So, now, on the one hand we have the 'hand axes,' which are the desired end product of the H. erectus brain, and on the other hand we have the small, useful flakes. Here's where it gets really tricky, philosophically speaking. Are the flakes really debitage? Or are the 'hand axes,' 'choppers,' and 'polyhedrons' just cores? 

"Butchering with small tools: the implications of the Evron Quarry assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus," by Michael Chazan. Antiquity 87:350–367,  2013. 
I'm not singling Michael Chazan out for punishment. He's not alone in trying to ascertain how many bipedal apes can dance on the distal extremity of a 'hand axe.' Inevitably, by cleaving to the FAF, they'll buy themselves "a ticket to obscurity" [excerpted from Famous Last Words of the Subversive Archaeologist, Vanity Press International, 2013]. I have to ask, "Has every archaeologist on the planet drunk the Bordesian typological Kool-Aid?" 

Source: Comme on dit en France, "Divine."
And speaking of drinking. When I started to write this blurt it was last Friday afternoon. I took a moment to plug a very decent $5 sparkling wine that Trader Joe's carries, and which I was, at the time, drinking. It's officially called Trader Joe's Blanc de Blancs Brut, and it's very colourful on the tongue. It's imported from France [so it must be good], and this grassy, pale beauty is every bit the peer of Freixenet, which at one time you could buy for $5, but which has suffered the fate of popularity, and had the price elevated due the disparity between supply and demand. [You know? I've always mistrusted the notion of supply and demand as the being the natural force determining value. It's too easy, don't you think, to consciously reduce output so as to encourage higher prices. The oil companies do it by limiting the number of refineries. OPEC does it by turning the well spigot a quarter turn to the right. Is it too far-fetched to think that wineries might do the same, even in the absence of demand in excess of production?

On the other hand, maybe drinking too much can engender conspiracy theories.

I look forward to seeing you next time. Thanks for visiting!

 AND REMEMBER, ANY TIME IS A GOOD TIME TO GET GOOD STUFF AT THE SUBVERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S OWN, EXCLUSIVE "A DRINK IS LIKE A HUG" ONLINE BOUTIQUE!



SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.

Tuesday 4 June 2013

O. M. F. G.! Monkeys Are Smarter Than Women? And We Thought The Tea Baggers Were Nuts...

I'm only gonna ask this riddle once.

Why are there no hate speech laws in the United States of America?
Because the country is riddled with Erick Ericksons and the people who listen to him. 

This from The Daily Currant
Erick Erickson: ‘Most Monkeys’ Are Smarter Than Women Jun. 04, 2013 
Fox News contributor Erick Erickson delved further into controversy today by claiming that most species of monkey are more intelligent than human women.
In an interview on Lou Dobbs' radio show today, the founder of conservative blog RedState was asked why he thought there had never been a female president and responded in typically misogynistic fashion.
"Well there's no mystery there," Erickson responded. "The laws of nature dictate that males are intellectually superior to females. In order to become president of the United States, you gotta have some brains to work with."
"It's not like no woman has ever tried. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was gonna be president, but she got outsmarted by a man. Most don't even get that far; they get outsmarted at the Congressional or Senate level."
"Women are dumb, Lou. Most species of monkey are smarter than women. Not gorillas necessarily, but certainly chimpanzees, orangutans and baboons."
Erickson founded the blog RedState in 2004, and it has since grown to become one of the most influential conservative publications on the Internet.
He has parlayed this success into a career as a pundit, first as a contributor for CNN and now for Fox News. His forays into television, however, have been fraught with controversy as he's continually used the platform to make misogynistic statements on national television.
Last week in a segment lamenting female-headed households, he claimed that in nature males are "dominant" and females "submissive." But today's outburst seemed too much even for fellow-traveler Lou Dobbs.
"Erick I respect your views," Dobbs interrupted, "and I certainly share them most of the time. But I have to ask, is that going a little too far? I mean women are clearly inferior to men. But monkeys? Really?"
"A lot of people assume women are smart because they understand language," Erickson retorted, "but look at their critical thinking and logical reasoning abilities. Just 'cause they can talk don't mean they have something smart to say."
And on spatial reasoning and navigation, women are a disaster. If you ask a male chimpanzee to drive to the other side of town and pick up some pizza, I can assure you he won't get lost on the way home."
Erickson has not responded to multiple requests for comment, but tweeted about the incident shortly after:
"I know the Loony Left freaks out whenever I tell the truth, but women are DUM! Deal with it!" 
I won't even bother to point out the dumb-ass grammar, bald-face lies, and incredibly hateful language and opinions. Abu Graib is too good for people like Erick Erickson.

ANY TIME IS A GOOD TIME TO GET GOOD STUFF AT THE SUBVERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S OWN, EXCLUSIVE "A DRINK IS LIKE A HUG" ONLINE BOUTIQUE
SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.

Saturday 1 June 2013

Revealing Deep Cleavage In The Levantine Lower Palaeolithic

These illustrations are taken from "CLEAVERS IN EARLY PALAEOLITHIC INDUSTRIES IN ISRAEL," by David Gilead. Paléorient 1:73--86, 1973. I came across it as I was busily preparing a take-down of Michael Chazan's latest phantasmagoria, "Butchering with small tools: the implications of the Evron Quarry assemblage for the behaviour of Homo erectus," ANTIQUITY 87: 350–367, 2013. [
[Wouldn't that title have been a whole lot more persuasive if it had been stated succinctly? What's wrong with "Butchering with small tools: the Evron Quarry's implications for Homo erectus behaviour?" But I digress.]

This won't be a diatribe on the Finished Artifact Fallacy. Instead, I'd like someone in Gilead's and Chazan's line of work to tell me why Gilead's so-called cleavers aren't in fact just pointless hand axes [if, at the end of the day, someone convinces me that the category "hand axe" isn't just another reified category].

Anybody? The first one to give me a convincing answer will receive an inexpensive but high-quality t-shirt in any size they want with "A drink is like a hug" printed tastefully on it wherever they choose and in a stunning range of colours.

I'll be here. Waiting.













 after


ANY TIME IS A GOOD TIME TO GET GOOD STUFF AT THE SUBVERSIVE ARCHAEOLOGIST'S OWN, EXCLUSIVE "A DRINK IS LIKE A HUG" ONLINE BOUTIQUE

SA announces new posts on the Subversive Archaeologist's facebook page (mirrored on Rob Gargett's news feed), on Robert H. Gargett's Academia.edu page, Rob Gargett's twitter account, and his Google+ page. A few of you have already signed up to receive email when I post. Others have subscribed to the blog's RSS feeds. You can also become a 'member' of the blog through Google Friend Connect. Thank you for your continued patronage. You're the reason I do this.