Um, er, right.

[bunnyjadwiga]

Well, so much for March is Research Blogging month, since I didn't post anything yesterday.

Actually, I *did* post something, but then thought better of it-- I started to review this really cool looking resource we have in our reference section. But then, being all librarian-cautious, I started looking for reviews. Well, a bunch of Brit archaeologists (or people who play Brit archaeologists over on amazon.co.uk) panned it, but there's almost no reviews of the darn thing in reputable academic journals, except for library review journals, which reviews are done by generalists/aka specialist librarians.

Now one thing you learn from reading way too much Elizabeth Peters is a permanent suspicion of anthropologists/archaeologists and their possible professional rivalries/jealousies. Follow that up with encountering a review in the Chronicle of Higher Education* of a book debunking the guy who debunked Margaret Mead, and I was pretty much sunk.

*No day in a librarian's life cannot be improved by skimming through the professional reading in her inbox and PASSING IT ON TO THE NEXT PERSON even if it does involve reading the Chronicle, which has way too much whining for my taste.

Comments

[marag.livejournal.com]

::headdesk:: Yes. The guy who debunked Margaret Mead was a serious jerk. He did have some good points, as I recall, but he completely failed to take the times into account. That was a whole Thing while I was working at the AAA.

Anthropologists do, indeed, spend a lot of time sniping at each other. Maybe not quite as much as in Elizabeth Peters' books, but much more than they should ;)