Socrates insisted: "If you would have discourse with me, you first must 
define your terms."    The position that one takes in addressing the 
present issue will depend in large part on one's definition of 
"intellectual."  There are a bunch of definitions on the 
internet--Google up a few and take your choice.  Or, it is your 
inalienable right to make up your own definition ("When I use a word, 
Humpty Dumpty said, it means just what I choose it to mean--nothing more 
nor less."  Lewis Carrol).

Back in the day, archaeologists generally recognized two kinds of 
archaeology: dirt archaeology and armchair archaeology.  Dirt 
archaeologists dig sites and record their findings in the form of data.  
Armchair archaeologists synthesize these data into abstract models of 
various kinds (e. g., archaeological phases and models of cultural 
process).  Some have even attempted to discover nomothetic laws of 
cultural dynamics based largely on such data.   There would be no 
armchair archaeology without the data base provided by dirt archaeologists.

Implicit in some of the posts about this thread is an apparent view of 
armchair archaeologists as intellectual and dirt archaeologists as 
anti-intellectual.The practice of both dirt and armchair archaeology, if 
done acceptably, requires a lot of knowledge, experience, expertise, 
and, yes, perspicacious cerebration (which is an intellectual exercise 
by any reasonable definition).

ebj

On 5/26/2015 10:38 AM, Jim wrote:
>   Confidence could turn to arrogance. I regularly read Science magazine...the contributors are not as confident as the general public might think and many do consider the affects--positive and negative--on the world around them.
> As to your second point, that isn't a question of intellectual versus anti-intellectual; it's simply a question of good scholarship versus no scholarship. That the academy continues to reward the latter along with the former with tenure and promotion warrants a bit of scholarship.
>   
>   
>   
> James G. Gibb
>
> Gibb Archaeological Consulting
>
> 2554 Carrollton Road
>
Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403 443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell) 
www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com On 05/26/15, 
geoff carver<[log in to unmask]> wrote: True that; and yet, I have a 
sneaking suspicion, that physicists and molecular biologists, etc., 
don't worry so much about, say, the influence of things like 
hermeneutics and phenomenology on their disciplines... they're more... 
confident(?) in their opinion of the value of their work? On a wider 
level I'm looking at a lot of the "theoretical" work going on, and 
wondering how so many can get away while missing some of the basics of 
scholarship (i.e. actually researching your subject before writing about 
it). -----Original Message----- The very act of questioning what we do, 
and on a regular basis, suggests that we pursue archaeology as an 
intellectual enterprise. I doubt the same could be said of many treasure 
hunters and collectors.