<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Collapse: How Authors Choose to Fail or Suceed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://savageminds.org/2009/01/06/collapse-how-authors-choose-to-fail-or-suceed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://savageminds.org/2009/01/06/collapse-how-authors-choose-to-fail-or-suceed/</link>
	<description>Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 01:35:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael E. Smith</title>
		<link>http://savageminds.org/2009/01/06/collapse-how-authors-choose-to-fail-or-suceed/comment-page-1/#comment-556500</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael E. Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://savageminds.org/?p=1460#comment-556500</guid>
		<description>Yes, Tainter&#039;s paper is a very nice essay and does a good job on Diamond and other recent books about collapse. But one of the more interesting aspects of his paper is pointing out that even when archaeologists write for each other, in the academic literature, their works may be used (and mis-used) by popular writers to score points in contemporary political debates. This may be nothing new to cultural anthropologists, but we archaeologists are not used to this kind of thing. It makes one think about issues of phrasing and framing, even in technical scholarly works.

BTW, if someone wants more information on just what Tainter thinks about ancient collapses (he keeps his own opinions to a minimum in the ARA paper), see:

Tainter, Joseph A.
2006	Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:59-74.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Tainter&#8217;s paper is a very nice essay and does a good job on Diamond and other recent books about collapse. But one of the more interesting aspects of his paper is pointing out that even when archaeologists write for each other, in the academic literature, their works may be used (and mis-used) by popular writers to score points in contemporary political debates. This may be nothing new to cultural anthropologists, but we archaeologists are not used to this kind of thing. It makes one think about issues of phrasing and framing, even in technical scholarly works.</p>
<p>BTW, if someone wants more information on just what Tainter thinks about ancient collapses (he keeps his own opinions to a minimum in the ARA paper), see:</p>
<p>Tainter, Joseph A.<br />
2006	Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:59-74.
<p>
				<span id="reportcomment_results_div_556500"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="reportComment_AddTextArea( 556500 );" title="Report this comment" rel="nofollow">Report this comment</a></span><br />
				<span id="reportcomment_comment_div_556500"></span>
			</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

