View TAG list of themes
The word archaeology is a value and any attempt to corrupt this value would make the followers of valuable archaeology angry, especially when it also corrupts American values.
TAG Illinois did not start well with announcing corrupted names like Rosemary Joyce and now the themes just make one asks: Who are those who believe that archaeology is about lumpenization and profanation?
Archaeology is as a rule low paid profession and not many A graded students would choose this profession. But among the archaeologists there are really very well paid and they are the ones who need to find time and to put the high barrier for the young as barrier of knowledge. TAG Illinois organizers cannot make even their web links works at all or with all servers
View TAG 2014 Convergence
Young without any quality knowledge – well demonstrated in the distributed abstract-comic by Watta and Buchanan for TAG 2014 play with words without any meaning. The so-called archaeology becomes empty-minded essay oriented expression of lumpenization. And this is what exactly the USA archaeology does not need. Since archaeologists travel, occupy university chairs and such not-quality “professionals” become targets of communist for spying and violence in and through America (KGB has tones of money for them). Most recent case with the Field Museum and participation of American “archaeologists” in psychotronic terrorism support in Bulgaria shows only one: HIGH BARRIER of quality knowledge is what American archaeology needs at this moment.
American archaeology needs highly knowledgeable young people who do not look for money but for quality life without a lot of money and who will not become victims of the terrorist communist ideology which first target is exactly the scientists of the USA.
With the parody list of TAG Illinois 2014, it looks somebody needs to take care of this failing event and to put high barrier of quality papers and abstracts since the aggressive communist archaeology including psychotronic terrorists may celebrate a new big victory after capturing prominent names, enjoying the dilettante archaeologists like Ruth Tringham and taking the American money for reproduction of psychotronic terrorism.
An instance below how not write a session abstract:
Session Title: Archaeologies of Violence and Violent Archaeology: Painful Histories, Past and Present
Elizabeth L. Watts (Indiana University), email@example.com
Meghan Buchanan (Indiana University), firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract: While archaeology has a long history studying the origins of violence and warfare, considerably less attention has been paid to the archaeology of painful histories. The convergences of certain acts, objects, materials, places, and people may have constituted violence and pain in the past and the present. By painful history we mean several things including (but not limited to): places where violent actions were enacted; places, objects, and times associated with violent acts in the past; archaeological and historic places, objects, and event associated with violence in the present. Violence in this respect is not tied solely to physical harm. Violence can be pervasive, manifested in systems of inequality. Violence can outlast acts of physical harm, embedding itself in daily actions, belief systems, specific places, and entire landscapes. In some cases, archaeological sites and objects that were the subject of past violences may continue to be places of pain for descendant communities. Alternatively, archaeological sites, objects, and data may be wielded to inflict pain on modern communities.
We ask participants to broadly interpret our theme of archaeologies of painful histories. What does an archaeology of violence and pain look like? How do we theorize the intersections of pain, violence, histories, lived memories, etc.? How do past violences continue to inflict pain? How is archaeology used as a weapon? What responsibilities do archaeologists have to “do no harm”? What are the ethical implications of studying violence, painful pasts, and painful presents? Some suggested topics may include:
• Heritage sites associated with violence
• Destruction of archaeological heritage for political means
• Battlefield, genocide, and grave sites
• Sites of contentious history
• Archaeology in, and of warzones
• Archaeological ethics of studying contested bodies, places, objects, and histories
• Archaeology and human rights issues
• The creation of places, regions, objects, and systems of violence – violence in the past
Comments: 1. As it has been already concluded, the Theme convergence is not a good theme since will make the participants use the word for old themes. 2. The abstract repeats endlessly violence and pain without showing that the authors have knowledge on the theory of violence and pain in science 3. Taking most popular theme in science, the organizers believe that can write an abstract without mentioning even one name of the army of good specialists on violence. At the same time even one sentence doe snot show that they are really good specialists in this topic to organize a session.
Such abstracts are scaring since they show arrogant young archaeologists of type Meg Conkey and Ruth Tringham who violate science. Usually such people have invisible non-ethical behavior. Nothing in the shown abstract indicates that the organizers should be respected, then, second danger - becoming victims of their own low quality culture, they will try with power to victimize those with high quality culture (Conkey-Tringham-Cashdam syndrome).