Archaeology is an inherently conservative discipline

[The Archregimancy]

I welcome the new ideologically-purified NationStates forums.

As many of you know, I'm an archaeologist, and teach at a highly-regarded archaeology department in the UK. Finally, I have the opportunity to discuss with you, like-minded men and women, the archaeological issues that really matter.

And I think it's time to look at how archaeology is an inherently conservative discipline, allowing us to give voice to natural hierarchical structures of past Western societies, as well as forefront Judeo-Christian morality and the surprising continuity of free-market capitalist structures within academic discourse. Why, just last week I had the opportunity to edit a teaching module on household archaeology in Pompeii that allowed me to see how the natural role of the pater familias within the Roman household helped protect the weak and less fortunate through locally-based capitalist power structures rather than through the interference of a state that largely restricted itself to defence of the Roman homeland.

As my fellow conservatives are naturally intellectually superior, I'd like to invite you to make your own observations on how archaeology - or indeed, any other academic discipline - demonstrates the moral and intellectual superiority of the conservative perspective.

With thanks,

The Archregimancy

[Mighty Qin]

1. "Giving voice to natural hierarchical structures of past Western societies." - It doesn't allow them to metaphorically speak, it informs us of them, neither condemning nor vindicating them. That's up to us.

2. "Forefront Judeo-Christian morality." Do you mean "put to the forefront?" You might find a skull of a Cathar caved in by a Christian fanatic bent on suppressing female ministers and aggrandizing land and wealth in the name of the papacy. It would showcase the morality inspired by these power structures, indeed.

3. "The surprising continuity of free-market capitalist structures within academic discourse." Archaeology since Quesnay and Turgot? I see. Before that, you would evidence of mercantilism, manorialism, Roman unequal trade agreements, state monopolies, and price fixing, prevention of Jews from owning land and ensuing discrimination, trade wars between Norman Sicily, Venice, and Byzantium, and so forth. The reign of Septimius Severus is a shining example of your thinking.

4. "the natural role of the pater familias....helped protect the weak and less fortunate." It also reinforced the primacy of one individual at the expense of many. Slaves, women used as bargaining chips in marriage alliances, younger sons denied economic opportunities because of primogeniture, and many more might disagree.

I'm not even a liberal. If you are indeed an archaeology professor, your ideological bent is highly unprofessional, and your observations inane. The Roman society you idealize was filled with constant social strife, civil wars, and miserable lives outside of patricians considering the wealth and power of Rome. The conservative devolution of Roman politics, from Republic to principus to dominus, along with the Christian 4th century conversion, contributed positively to the career of Odoacer. That's about as much benefit as your observations can derive.

An important part of interpreting history is attempting to be as intellectually objective as possible. When one puts the glasses of an ideologue on before examining evidence, the view is distorted, leading to the kind of inaccurate interpretations you made.

[Yootopia]

Only by looking at the past can we establish the tradition needed for the orderly running of society - nothing comes from nothing, and liberal relativism is useless in the face of common sense. All good historians, and probably archaeologists, know this in their hearts, even if they want to distort history into a long series of morality plays, with the 'downtrodden' always on the winning side.

Sometimes those in charge of governments win, because sometimes theirs is simply the better argument, backed up with better means.

[Mighty Qin]

Sometimes those in charge of governments win, because sometimes theirs is simply the better argument, backed up with better means.

Generally, those in charge of governments in the past ruled because they won the last war to control government. Ruling by elections and power of persuasion was a rarity. The development of common law, limitation of central authority, and democracy since the Magna Carta and Provisions of Oxford were won by argument and consensus. We can thank the Reformation and Enlightenment for the fact that we even have archaeology and science. There wasn't a lot of intellectual debate going on before them, other than religious councils at Nicaea and elsewhere to determine which sects of Christianity to suppress.

[Yootopia]

Sometimes those in charge of governments win, because sometimes theirs is simply the better argument, backed up with better means.

Generally, those in charge of governments in the past ruled because they won the last war to control government. Ruling by elections and power of persuasion was a rarity.

What is an election but a war for the hearts and minds of the plebs?

The development of common law, limitation of central authority, and democracy since the Magna Carta and Provisions of Oxford were won by argument and consensus.

The Magna Carta being the result of a long series of debates, rather than a massive punch-up. Yes.

We can thank the Reformation and Enlightenment for the fact that we even have archaeology and science.

Your hilarious north-west-euro-centrism aside, the real thing we can thank for the Reformation and Enlightenment is the generous patronage given to many artists and scholars by those with money to spend, without whom

There wasn't a lot of intellectual debate going on before them, other than religious councils at Nicaea and elsewhere to determine which sects of Christianity to suppress.

Loathe as I am to speak good of our current enemies, but there was plenty of intellectual debate going on in the Middle East and Africa at the time when Europe was starting to flounder.

[Mighty Qin]

What is an election but a war for the hearts and minds of the plebs?
Your hilarious north-west-euro-centrism aside, the real thing we can thank for the Reformation and Enlightenment is the generous patronage given to many artists and scholars by those with money to spend.
Loathe as I am to speak good of our current enemies, but there was plenty of intellectual debate going on in the Middle East and Africa at the time when Europe was starting to flounder.

Being caucasian, knowing the original poster is English, I'm naturally referring to Europe. The original post was clearly slanted towards Europe, mentioning Rome, Judeo-Christian values, and so forth. Using "hilarious" to counter an argument is stale and meaningless. I am not centrally based in any realm of knowledge. I'm guessing you don't know of Si Song, Zhuge Kongming, or the explorations of Zheng He, yet use condescending language toward a superior. One would "speak well" of our enemies by the way, not "speak good."

Martin Luther didn't post the 95 theses because of scholarly patronage. Henry VIII didn't begin the Anglican Church, nor were the religious wars of the 16-17th centuries fought because of patronage. What you're referring to is largely the derivative nature of European learning. The preservation of ancient knowledge, brought to Italy from Byzantine scholars fleeing the fall of Constantinople, the learning in Andalusia under the Cordoban Caliphate, and Chinese learning passed on by Mongol incursions are responsible for that. Gunpowder, the rudder, the compass, all the things necessary for the white man's conquest of the world, came from China.

[The Archregimancy]

I find it regrettable that a bitter arch-Trotskyite like yourself would waste time in a forum clearly designated for the true Conservative natural governing elite, but you may find the following link offers a more natural venue for your Bolshevik leanings:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=43902

1. "Giving voice to natural hierarchical structures of past Western societies." - It doesn't allow them to metaphorically speak, it informs us of them, neither condemning nor vindicating them. That's up to us.

Your tired relativism is precisely the sort of moral weakness that undermined western civilisation in the decades after the first World War, leading inexorably to both Bolshevism and Nazism. Only the recognition of natural hierarchies, as outlined by the archaeological evidence, but as opposed by the twisted egalitarianism of the Bolsheviks and misunderstood by the fascist Nazis can protect capitalism and democracy.

2. "Forefront Judeo-Christian morality." Do you mean "put to the forefront?" You might find a skull of a Cathar caved in by a Christian fanatic bent on suppressing female ministers and aggrandizing land and wealth in the name of the papacy. It would showcase the morality inspired by these power structures, indeed.

Only a communist could fail to recognise that 'forefront' is a perfectly good verb in academic discourse.

As far as the Cathars are concerned, they were proto-communists, and therefore destined for destruction by the naturally superior proto-capitalist forces of feudal France. And what if there were innocent victims? Surely any sensible person would stand by Arnaud-Amaury's statement "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

3. "The surprising continuity of free-market capitalist structures within academic discourse." Archaeology since Quesnay and Turgot? I see. Before that, you would evidence of mercantilism, manorialism, Roman unequal trade agreements, state monopolies, and price fixing, prevention of Jews from owning land and ensuing discrimination, trade wars between Norman Sicily, Venice, and Byzantium, and so forth. The reign of Septimius Severus is a shining example of your thinking.

I find Septimius Severus a model of sanity given the advice that, according to Cassius Dio, he gave Geta and Caracalla on his deathbed - though naturally I prefer Constantine I and Theodosius I for their rightly-celebrated role in establishing Christianity as the state religion. As to the medieval trade wars you cite, these merely demonstrate the natural superiority of free-market capitalism. Byzantium collapsed due to the unsustainable policy of increasing tariffs on internal trade and their own merchants while eliminating tariffs on foreign merchants; the Byzantine merchants were unable to compete, and the Italians became increasingly aggressive in maintaining their competitive advantage. Had the Comnenian emperors simply abolished all trade duties - for both internal and external merchants - thereby instituting true free-market capitalism, then the problem would have been abolished, and we would have had no Fourth Crusade. Though naturally the rest of the Crusades are a good thing as they gave the Muslims a good kicking.

4. "the natural role of the pater familias....helped protect the weak and less fortunate." It also reinforced the primacy of one individual at the expense of many. Slaves, women used as bargaining chips in marriage alliances, younger sons denied economic opportunities because of primogeniture, and many more might disagree.

The bitter and inferior will always be whinging. The sooner they suck it up and accept the superiority of their natural betters, the happier Western society will be.

I'm not even a liberal. If you are indeed an archaeology professor, your ideological bent is highly unprofessional, and your observations inane. The Roman society you idealize was filled with constant social strife, civil wars, and miserable lives outside of patricians considering the wealth and power of Rome. The conservative devolution of Roman politics, from Republic to principus to dominus, along with the Christian 4th century conversion, contributed positively to the career of Odoacer. That's about as much benefit as your observations can derive.

I regret that your last four sentences here clearly undermine your first. Though I suppose I could agree that you're not a liberal in so far as you're clearly a revolutionary socialist.

An important part of interpreting history is attempting to be as intellectually objective as possible. When one puts the glasses of an ideologue on before examining evidence, the view is distorted, leading to the kind of inaccurate interpretations you made.

My conservative brother Yootopia has already adequately answered this canard about 'objectivity' masquerading as left-wing subjectivity, so I see no need to address it further.

[Rambhutan]

It truly is a shame that such a noble conservative discipline allows itself to be hijacked into the global communist conspiracy by being represented in the mass media by a notorious Marxist like Tony Robinson.

[Bor Dome]

i thought that areas of study like archaeology were above politics? perhaps it's wrong to look to the past for reasons why the future will doubtless follow a specific course. i really appreciate your bipartisan approach, because it's the right way to approach any topic. But i'd hesitate in using the past as a means of explaining (or portioning blame) for contemporary problems. It demeans the essence of what we are studying by associating the past to powerfully with us.

[Mighty Qin]

1. I noted that archaeological findings have none of the ideological attachments you impute to them. "I found a piece of pottery that confirms societies of the past were patrilineal. Alas, my ideas are correct!" There is no relativism therein leading to Nazism or Bolshevism, only an appeal to scientific objectivity you apparently shield yourself from. Your notion that the openmindedness of German and Russian society between the WWI and WWII led to their respective forms of government is bizarre and unsubstantiated. If only they'd been more close minded and ideological, they'd never have adopted Nazism and Communism, eh?

2. Forefront is not a verb.

3. I hope you're playing some sort of character in your reference to the Albigensian Crusades. If you believe people should be wiped out for deviating from church doctrine, the people who employ you should be ashamed for their ignorance of your insanity. Describing them as even proto-communists is plainly anachronistic and inaccurate, as well.

4. Septimius Severus was anything but a model for laissez-faire economics.

5. Your mention of the "whinging" of the bitter and inferior is ironic. You assume that birth automatically indicates superiority. Suppose a woman is a wiser ruler than a man? Suppose a youngest son is a far better candidate to inherit an estate than the eldest? Such a system as you support entrenches potentially inferior people. The pax romana can be largely attributed to the superiority of the adoption system for emperors, broken by Marcus Aurelius. Assuming birth is enough leads to rulers like Liu Shan of Shu-Han.

6. I'm not a revolutionary socialist, I merely pointed out the asinine nature of your deluded remarks. If you're playing a character, fair game, but if you instantly throw labels like "revolutionary socialist" at anyone who isn't politically to the right of Alfred Rosenberg, you've created a reality no sunlight of reason can penetrate.

7. I'm not advocating left-wing objectivity, I despise ideologically blinded people, whether they be from the left, or from the right like yourself.

The Qin dynasty, my namesake, included a punishment for treason of tying a man's appendages to four horses, and pulling him apart. The Legalist code of Shang Yang and Li Si was an ultraconservative one. With your blinders, you might look at a victim of this practice and think, "Ah, now that's when law and order ruled. This affirms my previously held beliefs that conservative policies work best." Such an assertion would follow from its own premise, which David Hume warned against. It would also be incorrect.

A liberal could look at the same evidence with a predetermined mindset and see it as affirmation of their beliefs. My point is that no object is automatically contributive to evidence of the superiority of either mindset. Such things must be judged on an individual basis without a locked mindset. An open mind is scientific, your mind or the mind of the character you are playing is that of a dolt.

[Yootopia]

What is an election but a war for the hearts and minds of the plebs?
Your hilarious north-west-euro-centrism aside, the real thing we can thank for the Reformation and Enlightenment is the generous patronage given to many artists and scholars by those with money to spend.
Loathe as I am to speak good of our current enemies, but there was plenty of intellectual debate going on in the Middle East and Africa at the time when Europe was starting to flounder.

Being caucasian, knowing the original poster is English, I'm naturally referring to Europe. The original post was clearly slanted towards Europe, mentioning Rome, Judeo-Christian values, and so forth. Using "hilarious" to counter an argument is stale and meaningless.

So's relativism.

I am not centrally based in any realm of knowledge. I'm guessing you don't know of Si Song, Zhuge Kongming, or the explorations of Zheng He, yet use condescending language toward a superior.

I don't use condescending language toward my superiors.

One would "speak well" of our enemies by the way, not "speak good."

Nope.

Martin Luther didn't post the 95 theses because of scholarly patronage.

How do you think he could afford to waste time thinking about how bad the church was? Because he was paid to kick about being pious, which you can only do for so many hours of the day before one's mind wonders.

Henry VIII didn't begin the Anglican Church, nor were the religious wars of the 16-17th centuries fought because of patronage.

False, on a whole new level, where the rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble. That's why those things really kicked off. If I started a church now without any money to back me up, or tried to declare holy war on a European nation-state, I'd look like a bit of a mong. If, on the other hand, I had the full resources of the state behind me, I might actually succeed in my aims.

That's why the Anglican Church was more than a flash in the pan, and why the religious wars through history lasted quite a while - because of the extremely vested interests they represented.

What you're referring to is largely the derivative nature of European learning.

No, I'm not.

[The Archregimancy]

I strongly suggest that you check your telegrams before righteous indignation leads you to blow a fuse.

But in the meantime...

The Qin dynasty, my namesake, included a punishment for treason of tying a man's appendages to four horses, and pulling him apart. The Legalist code of Shang Yang and Li Si was an ultraconservative one. With your blinders, you might look at a victim of this practice and think, "Ah, now that's when law and order ruled. This affirms my previously held beliefs that conservative policies work best."

This is the single most sensible thing you've written so far, and suggests that there's hope yet for leftist Trotskyites like yourself.

As I'm sure you're aware, the Eastern Zhou's decline was brought about by a basic lack of respect for the Mandate of Heaven and other institutions upholding the centralised state, the consequent rise of decentralisation through the fēngjiàn system, and the lack of a coherent moral philosophy revolving around the precepts of respect for the naturally superior - as subsequently outlined by Kǒng Fūzǐ. Though naturally the true conservative prefers the Four Elements of classical Sizi, namely loyalty, filial piety, restraint, and righteousness.

Fortunately, China's moral and political decline was reversed by Qin Shi Huang, one of history's truly magisterial figures, who proceeded to build one of history's great utopias, where respect for law, order, and classical Chinese legalism held sway. I'm glad you reference Li Si, who saw that the outmoded thinking that led to the Zhou decline should be suppressed so that the prototypes of the political ideals that would later inspire Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher could have free reign.

Certainly some would say that burying nearly 500 scholars alive, and burning all banned books may have been a step to far, but you can't make a Chinese oyster omelet without breaking a few eggs and shucking a few oysters, can you? Mao, after all, was proud that he had 'surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold', which just shows what sort of outrageous excesses you get with leftists.

[Buffett and Colbert]

We've found Jesus' grave, right?

[Zwangzug]

Conservatism, by definition, champions the way things were in the past.
Archeology allows you to discover the way things were in the past.
Seems like a natural fit to me.

[The Archregimancy]

We've found Jesus' grave, right?

No.

Sadly, that was a plot by radical atheists.

Besides, a good Puerto Rican Catholic like yourself should know that we wouldn't be able to find the tomb of the Risen Lord since no one would be buried in it.

[Mighty Qin]

I was digging in my backyard and found the broken backbone of a toothless quadriplegic hermaphrodite circus worker. WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!! There you have it, you've provoked me beyond measure, I can't hold it back any further!

[The Archregimancy]

I was digging in my backyard and found the broken backbone of a toothless quadriplegic hermaphrodite circus worker. WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!! There you have it, you've provoked me beyond measure, I can't hold it back any further!

I'm glad you were finally able to admit to your far-left anti-family values liberal agenda.

Doesn't it feel better to own up to the truth rather than hide behind a facade of academic 'objectivity'?