Very interesting. I guess maybe now I'll actually read the paper and see 
who's right!

On 6/17/2019 9:33 AM, Michael Roller wrote:
> I am going to oblige those commentators that have encouraged more “intellectual dialogue” on this forum. Indeed, the forum article was formulated to inspire such intellectual conversation. But I am also going to support those understand this isn’t really what has happened here, i.e. I will expose the baboonery concealed as scholarly critique at the center of George Miller’s critique of my recent paper "The Archaeology of Machinic Consumerism: The Logistics of the Factory Floor in Everyday Life." Because of associated baboonery, I also now have the professional responsibility of defending my work, the hard work of my colleagues, my educational institution, my degree, my publication, my editor, and my peer reviewers. And most of all, Mr. Miller shouldn’t get away with shoddy argumentation. Lastly, I want to oblige those who complain there are not enough “interesting posts” here.
>
> So let’s not be selective about Miller’s piece, but approach it holistically. Miller offers the opposite of what’s called a “poop” sandwich. For those committed to a career encouraging and nurturing junior scholars, a “poop” sandwich has the critical stuff in the middle, in between slices of positive feedback and encouragement. Miller’s poop is smeared on the front and back. That smear characterizes my paper as overly focused on theory, such that the methodology and analysis were hastily conducted. Moreover, his critique is of the character of anti-intellectualism that simplifies all theory or intellectualism as “marxism” (I know some places in my hometown in DC where you can get on the payroll with the fascists for saying things like this, or at least get some free beers). Rather than engaging with the theory or ideas presented in the essay to challenge this aspect, Miller focuses on some rather immaterial material evidence to construct his distracting argument. He seems to believe that theorization and methods are mutually exclusive aptitudes. I know plenty of professional archaeologists, young and old, who absolutely know their stuff on both sides.  Overall, I appreciated his attempted engagement with the content of the piece, but it is misguided and wasted when it used as evidence for his broader argument of discrediting the theory in the piece.  (its like a shoemaker that can only bring shoes to knife fights). There are a number of useful references Miller places at the end, many of which will be useful for future research on the subject of the essay. I have already said enough nice things about Miller’s work on this listserv, so I will not chastise him for the self-aggrandizing bibliographic references. What he offers here will go far towards establishing the “nuanced periodicity of 20th century material culture” I call for in the paper.
>
> So let’s talk about archaeology, because that is what we are here for, right? Let me start by pointing out that one of the two “corrections” he provides is based on a misreading of the reference he claims I misread. Moreover, it is based on his second-guessing of my analysis without ever seeing the artifact in question. First of all, this is shoddy science. Second of all, this falsified or nonexistent evidence has been provided as the foundation for his larger argument that my analysis has been clouded by my (“marxist”) theory. I would have failed the structure of this kind of argumentation in a freshman debate class (but I would have given the student a proper "poop" sandwich to let them know in a constructive way). So, to sum up, a snap accusation based upon false arguments, to support an apparently  partisan judgement. Let’s move on and return to this later. (Is this post interesting enough yet for you, Carl Steen?)
>
> Let’s get back to the material culture side of things. I think this issue really illustrates the anachronism of the sort of single attribute analysis that really works sometimes for stuff like the WSG-SW/ creamware/ pearlware analysis, but is not always applicable to twentieth century contexts [“Thanks George, pulls green= creamware; pulls blue= pearlware” and yes, I have read the literature...]. The material culture of the twentieth century is exemplified by mass reproduced replicas, recycled decorative patterning, wholly novel materials and a mélange of construction techniques. To untangle this, we clearly need holistic forms of analysis to date difficult artifacts like ceramics and glass. In the case of the “MADE IN JAPAN” ceramics, I not only examined the single attribute of the maker’s mark, but also the stylization of the mark, the paste, the decorative pattern. I compared these with examples online and in texts.
>
> So let’s review what Miller actually says, what the reference actually says, and my analysis.
>
> Miller:
> “…on page seven he mentions “two or three” plates marked MADE IN JAPAN.  He cites a web site by Jan-Erik Nilsson that “Such patterns largely date to the period after the Second World War, when Japanese-made import ceramics were required to be marked as such.” Page 23 of the Nilsson web site clearly states that the 1892 McKinley Tariff required all imported
> ceramics to have a mark as to the country of origin.  Japanese ceramics until 1921 were marked made in Nippon, after that date they were required
> to be marked made in Japan. Following the Nilsson comments on the marking of Japanese ceramics he shows several plates marked “MADE IN OCCUPIED
> JAPAN” and states that this mark was used from 1946 to 1952.  This information clearly suggests that the Japanese plates from the privy date from before WWII.”
>
> Nilsson says:
> “Pieces marked with JAPAN or MADE IN JAPAN in plain text without any company marks, in general date to the period immediately after the second WW. Some come with the addition of OCCUPIED JAPAN.”
>
> Roller, observed the ceramic firsthand and reports that the piece says “MADE IN JAPAN” in plain text without any company marks. Moreover, the color and texture of the glaze, the decorative patterning and perhaps most importantly, the stylization of the maker’s mark, all match comparative examples from the 1940s and 1950s. My analysis was based upon Nilsson’s clear statement, and the synthesis of these multiple artifact attributes I observed by actually looking at the artifact. Meyers let us know on this listserv that undeniably “MADE IN JAPAN” could be found on examples of Japanese ceramics found in sealed pre-1922 contexts. It is clear that it can also be found on post WWII examples. Taken along with the other attributes of the ceramic, this piece clearly postdates WWII. So this was half of the “evidence” Mr. Miller uses to argue…. that my paper overemphasized theory?
>
> Lessons to learn here: 1) Don’t analyze artifacts without ever seeing them. 2) Use multiple attributes to identify diagnostics if we have them available. 3) Don’t second guess other scholars without being sure or asking more questions. 4) Don’t misread the references you accuse others of misreading. 5) No babooning.
>
> The second bit of correction he offers is more opaque, and he is not clear on how this upsets the argument of my paper. The period of mechanization I discuss begins in the first decade of the twentieth century, and I argue, using a hypothesis drawing upon a variety of sources and lines of evidence, that social behavior is partially engineered to complement these emerging production processes such as the encouragement of waste by the 1930s into 50s and on until today. Perhaps it was not clear when I referred to “fully” automatic examples of bottles I was differentiating those made on conveyor belts with clear post 1930s morphology from bottles from merely “automatic” or “semi-automatic.” machines. Or that I used multiple attributes such as knurling and other production morphology, ACL labels, comparative examples from the region, and sometimes even surviving paper labels. Importantly, I am not talking about beer consumption in this paper. A basic read of the paper reveals that I consider bottle waste itself as a form of consumption, and in particular the decadent forms of waste which arrive in mid-century as qualitatively different forms of consumption than previous forms. Perhaps one had to read the theory section.
>
> Mr. Miller’s account of the Owens Automatic Bottle Machine as the first automatic machine is certainly true. His demonstration of its limited distribution as a patented lease for the first decades of the twentieth century (when it “began to take off” as he says) however does not contradict my argument about the later social changes this resulted in. Again, this nuanced accounting of technological change across the twentieth century is invaluable, and it alone can form the basis for an explanation of these social changes rooted in historical materialism. But what I am discussing in this essay is not the specific timeline for bottle-making technology, but the social behaviors that resulted or were engineered to compensate for them, and for which there is a time lag with the technological changes.
>
> This dissonance between what Mr. Miller is looking for in my article and what I intend to demonstrate is quite material to the discussion at hand. For one thing, it demonstrates the limitations of dismissing or not reading the theoretical portion of an article. If we refuse to read the theoretical section, it is our loss in the sense that we will miss out on the whole point of the scholarship. To then critique the same article based upon a selective reading which dismisses the ideas at its core is more than “irritating” (as he says he finds my theory sections), but rather irresponsible. Miller jauntily proclaims I should “stop being held a prisoner by the assemblage you are working with” at the conclusion of his clunker. This, ironically, is exactly what he has done by failing to engage with the ideas which frame, and then make meaningful, the material assemblage introduced in the article.
>
> I am afraid I have delivered to George a “poop” sandwich in reverse!  Luckily there are at least two uses for a Sear’s Roebuck catalog. You can often find them piled up in the back corner of the outhouse.
>
> ########################################################################
>
> Access the HISTARCH Home Page and Archives:
> https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=HISTARCH
>
> Unsubscribe from the HISTARCH List:
> https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
> ########################################################################

########################################################################

Access the HISTARCH Home Page and Archives:
https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=HISTARCH

Unsubscribe from the HISTARCH List:
https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1

########################################################################