the greycat blog

The history of human society suggests that useful technologies tend gradually to develop rather than suddenly appear, and often do so independently in different parts of the world, but that doesn’t stop people from always trying to find ‘the origin’ of whatever it is they are interested in, and ideally ‘the inventor’ as well.

Thus: ‘Bone Ice Skates Invented by Ancient Finns, Study Says’, is a headline in National Geographic this week. The study in question, ‘The first humans travelling on ice: an energy-saving strategy’ by Federico Formenti and Alberto E. Minetti, is published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society for January 2008. Looking at the terrain of southern Finland (lots of lakes) and calculating the energy saving available to people who skated rather than walking (10% or so) leads Formenti and Minetti to conclude that ‘ice-skating happened in [this] area because of the several long and thin lakes that people had to cross in order to get around, hunting for food or for any daily activity’ - a reasonable notion, but a long way from establishing that ice skates were Invented by Ancient Finns. Southern California is an ideal climate and terrain for motor transport, but the automobile wasn’t invented there.

The authors (who are physiologists rather than historians or archaeologists, and I think it shows) summarize their conclusions in their abstract like this: ‘An analysis of the geometrical shape of lakes associated with fractal analysis of their distribution suggests that, in order to better adapt to the severe conditions imposed by the long lasting winters, Finnish populations could benefit more than others from developing this ingenious locomotion tool’. This is rather more cautious than the NG headline, but is still somewhat generalized and teleological; it’s like arguing that because of the particular characteristics of Polynesian geography, boats must have been invented by Polynesians.

An interesting piece of research, anyway, into a neglected aspect of transport history. The story is also covered by The Times (‘Dashing Finns were first to get their skates on 5,000 years ago’) and the BBC (‘Skating traced back 4,000 years’), although unlike National Geographic they don’t provide a helpful link to a map of Europe for people who don’t know where Finland is.

I know that I said my last post on Nadia Abu El Haj would be precisely that, my last post on the matter, at least for a while. However, as the following is of considerable interest for anyone who has been following the Abu El Haj controversy (and consists not of my views but of an exchange of views by others), I think I can be allowed to stretch a point. 

Larry Cohler-Esses, editor-at-large of The Jewish Week, is a journalist who has reported the Nadia Abu El Haj controversy in some detail. Following the publication of an article in which he was critical of the campaign against Abu El Haj, he was contacted by a Columbia University faculty member who took issue with his position. A very interesting and enlightening exchange of views took place, so interesting that Larry has - with the permission of his correspondent, on condition of anonymity - asked for it to be published in full here. What follows consists entirely of the text of the exchange between Larry and his anonymous correspondent (’XXX’), as Larry has forwarded it to me. As the whole thing makes for a long post, I have put the transcript itself under the cut. (more…)

The current (Fall 2007) edition of The Current (’A journal of contemporary politics, culture, and Jewish affairs’ published at Columbia University) has a special focus on ‘Studying Middle East Studies’, sparked by the Nadia Abu El Haj controversy. Three essays relate Abu El Haj’s work to wider currents in contemporary anthropology and Middle East studies. They are all well worth reading, but I would particularly recommend David Rosen’s discussion of Facts on the Ground.

• David Rosen, ‘Searching for Facts on the Ground‘
• James R. Russell, ‘Ideology over integrity in academe’
• Jonathan Rosenbaum, ‘Is truth attainable?’

This will probably be my last posting on Nadia Abu El Haj for a while. I think it’s time to let her get on with her work and see what she comes up with - not, I suspect, that it will contain many surprises.

‘Was Nadia Abu El Haj Treated Fairly?’ is the title of an article of mine published by History News Network today. Here’s the direct link.

A selection of further responses to Nadia Abu El Haj’s gaining of tenure, in no particular order.

Inside Higher Ed has a report that strives for balance, although citing this hostile review, now discredited, does no-one any favours. Some positive comments from two former students of Nadia Abu El Haj can be found at Interprete. Some tired old anti-tenure canards are given the chance to flutter their wings by Marty Peretz, who proves how well-informed he is about Nadia Abu El Haj’s work by getting her subject wrong (anthropology, not archaeology). A site called The Islamic Workplace has decided that Nadia Abu El Haj is a Muslim.

Over at Israel Matzav Paula Stern is quoted approvingly and at great length, which should tell you all you need to know. Elder of Ziyon favours an approach based on personal abuse, describing Nadia Abu El Haj as a ‘bigot’ pursuing ‘a purely Jew-hating agenda’, both of which claims are surely actionable. From another perspective (and under the category ‘Palestein’, sic), avari rejoices that Nadia Abu El Haj winning tenure means ‘that we are free to pursue knowledge against agendas of imperialism, oppression and hegemony’. Oh thank goodness, there are so few academics interested in doing that these days. Ethel Fenig at American Thinker condemns the tenure decision and reminds us that Jordan did a lousy job as custodian of eastern Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, and that the Islamic authorities responsible for the Temple Mount today are little more than a gang of vandals. Both these statements are undeniably true; quite what they have to do with whether Nadia Abu El Haj should have been awarded tenure, however, is far from clear.

MuzzleWatch (’comments are closed’) welcomes the tenure decision, and cites Larry Cohler-Esses as a counter to Paula Stern; both pieces are, in my opinion, rather too partisan to form the basis of a balanced view of the issue. Israpundit offers a semi-literate but concise blend of misrepresentation, unfounded accusation and insulting insinuation: ‘Abu El-Haj, is an artful deconstructionist, fiction writer and Christian dhimmi doing the bidding for her beleagured Palestinian Islamists benefactors as a Social Anthropologist in the academy’.

Finally, The Bwog, which is compiled by staff from Columbia University’s undergraduate magazine The Blue and White, puts things in perspective with its description of the whole tenure controversy as ‘a drawn-out squabble on the margins of academia’.

[UPDATE 6 November 2007: I’ve slightly amended the wording of the penultimate paragraph to be fairer to Larry Cohler-Esses, in response to Richard Silverstein’s comment below.]

It’s been confirmed that Nadia Abu El Haj has been awarded tenure: ‘Controversial Barnard prof. gets tenure’ (Jewish Telegraph Agency), ‘Embattled Barnard anthropologist is awarded tenure’ (New York Times), ‘A new fact on the ground: Nadia Abu El Haj wins tenure at Barnard College’ (Chronicle of Higher Education), ‘Nadia Abu El-Haj gets tenure at Barnard despite smear campaign’ (MuzzleWatch), ‘Tenured!’ (Dr Jim West), ‘Columbia grants Abu El-Haj tenure’ (Richard Silverstein).

The campaign to deny Abu El Haj tenure was illegitimate in its conception and, in many ways, disreputable in its tactics. I am heartily glad that it failed. Tenure is a matter internal to the academic institutions concerned and internet campaigns, petitions and anonymous smear sites cannot be allowed to play any role. As with any other scholar, Nadia Abu El Haj’s tenure process was a matter for her, her colleagues and her university, and never was anybody else’s business.

There’s been no official announcement from Columbia or Barnard as yet, but what appears to be confirmation of the tenure decision from someone within the university administration is reported by the Columbia Spectator (an earlier version of the story here).

More coverage: The New York Sun, Solomonia, and (for anyone who has forgotten just what the campaign against Nadia Abu El Haj has been like) Paula Stern.

From Solomonia: ‘Sources: Nadia Abu El Haj receives tenure’. No confirmation elsewhere yet, as far as I am aware.

At Paleojudaica, Jim Davila has a thoughtful and perceptive post on the latest in the Nadia Abu El Haj controversy, in which he discusses, among other things, the ‘pure political fabrication’ issue (see my earlier post here). He describes me as writing ‘in defense of [Paula] Stern’, which isn’t a characterization of my position I’m particularly happy with, but he is very judicious in his analysis of what Abu El Haj says, and what her critics (notably Paula Stern) have said about what she says:

She seems to be implying that although archaeologists do not regard “the modern Jewish/Israeli belief in ancient Israelite origins” as on the same level as “Arab claims of Canaanite or other ancient tribal roots,” they really ought to. This is not stated clearly (it’s a good example of the argument by innuendo for which I criticized her in my review), but I don’t see how else to read it in context. I have commented on the general question of Jewish vs. Palestinian cultural and genetic continuity with ancient Palestine here. Abu El-Haj’s phrasing is vague enough that it’s hard to be sure what she’s trying to compare, but I think the most positive thing I can say is that if she means what she seems to be implying, she’s wrong: they are not comparable. But I’m inclined to put the paragraph under Popper’s category of being “not even wrong” — not sufficiently clearly formulated to be evaluated critically. Still, I think Stern should have phrased her criticism more cautiously and carefully.

As my earlier post makes clear (I hope), I see the same meaning as Jim Davila does in this passage, and indeed can’t see how it can be read any other way, despite its lack of clarity. Richard Silverstein’s point in his comment about the possible meaning of Abu El Haj’s italics gave me pause, but in the end I don’t think his suggestion is credible. I think the italics are there to emphasize the claim that even if Israeli archaeologists are prepared to concede that to some degree ‘the modern Jewish/Israeli belief in ancient Israelite origins’ is a political fabrication, they are not prepared to accept that it is pure political fabrication, and that she thinks they should. It’s hard to tell, though, not least because Nadia Abu El Haj, as with so many postmodernist academics, is unduly fond of italics (recalling Christopher de Bellaigue’s comment on Edward Said: ‘he is constantly wringing his hands as he writes’).

To return to what Jim Davila has to say (and leaving aside the small point that his link to my post has an incorrect URL) he also notes that he has signed neither the petition in support of, nor the petition against, Nadia Abu El Haj receiving tenure: ‘I don’t think tenure decisions should be made by petition’, he writes. Absolutely right.

Perhaps the fullest and most balanced article yet on the Nadia Abu El Haj Facts on the Ground controversy:

The Jewish Week News: Flinging Dirt in Archaeology Dispute