The devolution of the academic personality may reflect on the work of the author as well. Douglass W Bailey is an example of a person who devolved from a Cambridge student and an author of a classic today work on the prehistoric figurines to a replicator who publishes essay-like non-contributive papers, with absence of ability to acknowledge his behavior of a social, emotional and sexual abuser and to excuse for his behavior.
At academia.edu is Bailey’s most recent article (2013). Already the first sentence strikes with absence of academic knowledge and frames that places the article immediately in pseudoscience of grey literature and questions the quality of the editor, as well as the academic position of the authors involved in this affair.
The first impression is the Bailey pathologically continues his anti-historical approach to prehistory that means absence of professional knowledge and active participatiuon in devolution of the science of prehistory, in particular of Balkan prehistory. How is possible not only the author but the editor not to have elementary knowledge on chronology of prehistory?
The relative chronology is of most primary importance for prehistory. Prehistory was built as a science because on the relative chronology. There are several generations archaeologists who have been working on Balkan prehistory and despite of difference Bailey is the only who writes absurd in a publication which attempts to be academic. He dates Neolithic from 6500 to 3500 BCE (I believe calibrated dates) (Bailey, 2013: 244). However, as the author and a long list of other authors have very clearly shown in their works, Neolithic in the Balkans ends abt 5000-4800 cal BCE according to the accepted in Bulgarian historiography scheme. The Romanian and Serbian differ slightly. The period of the 5th millennium and early fourth millennium is Copper and Final Copper Age, while 3500 cal BCE is already Early Bronze Age. This scheme may have variations, but Copper Age is so strong and well represented in the Balkans that ignoring this Age in scholarly work is like writing about another region.
Then, should one continue to read an article in which one author with academic position has been writing in an absolute sociopathic dilettante style on Balkan prehistory? Who is this article address to? How is possible, a sociopathic dilettante style to be published in an academic book and the author even to have a professor chair at university being also a social, emotional and sexual abuser? Chronology was a weakness in early Bailey's works, but because of the difficulties in correlations of the Balkan historiography, it looks just fine not to expect that young author from from West to be able to build a solid knowledge on chronology. However, when one replicates at 50 the same knowledge like at 30, it is really a devolution of the scholar since he does not understand the role of age in maturing of the scholarly knowledge.
Even more terrifying is the framework of Bailey that which is in the dilettante style and absence of serious scientific goals. Doesn’t really the span of 3000 years help to understand and see changes in past? Bailey writes with a flattened mind on chronology that indicates obvious minimum to no knowledge in depth on Balkan prehistory when at 50 at a level to be able to create solid diachronic models what one would expect at this age. The other question is: Do really the figurines construct ideas or in fact they reproduced ideas of identity? The figurines did mainly reproduce ideas since they imitated the social world. Accordingly, Bailey does not have logical argument of formulation of a real scientific problem. For such long span it is important how the idea of reproducing of gender has changed and not just statement of obvious even for the small children fact that there were female, male or asexual bodies.
Let go to the conclusions:
1. Bailey states that “it is no longer valid to speak of the Neolithic of central and southeastern Europe in terms of a matriarchic society in which figurines provide an easily read, direct reflection of gender identity and politics” (Bailey, 2013: 260) Who are these 21st century scholars who insist that prehistoric figurines represent matriarchic society? Is this a conclusion related to the problem framework? Bailey is not able today even to make connection between research problem and conclusion and in the conclusion starts with statement which is completely not relevant to the formulated problem – construction of gender. If it was a problem of matriarchic society, then, it should be in introduction with the related reference to be clear who Bailey is arguing with.
2. Bailey states that as “representations, figurines were diverse, active, subjective constructions of Neolithic conceptions of the world and of the locus for the human spirit within that world.” (Bailey, 2013:260) This is a meaningless wordy phrase since prehistory is history and Neolithic is a specific historical term. The figurines were part of the complex cultural system of Balkan prehistory which developed in the context of Neolithic and Copper Age. However, they did not directly represent very clear Neolithic conception and this is one of the important characteristics of prehistoric art – in some cases Neolithic and Copper Age represent similar symbolism (for instance, the pregnant figurines), while in one and the same period it is possible to see representation of different types, respectively ideas. As a law, art is rarely connected with the objective economic and social world and culture is always richer than the limited frames of the epoch, which explain the actual language of the figurines as art even today.
3. Bailey states: “If there is a pattern among figurines, then it is that examples that lack depictions of sexual body parts are the most numerous.” This is factually wrong that means, Bailey even either do not know the material or has been just writing without thinking on what has been writing.
4. Bailey states: “…however, uncertainty remains: the sexing of body parts (as
depicted) is not a straightforward process: when is a breast male and when is it female?” If it is true partially, what is the meaning? Dis it really the gender matter or the figurines related to moral categories, for instance? In general is there any difference in understanding if gender in prehistory and today?
Bailey states that “there is little confidence that the concepts we recognize as male or female existed in the Neolithic”? First, if there was no confidence, why is his research statement that the figurines were really a gender constructors? If the academic literature is for healthy thinking people, what is the place of Bailey in this book after such obvious controversy? What does it mean “static over time”- can’t we really measure time in prehistory having in mind that the chronology of figurines is clear even within 50 years. Lumpenization and absurdization is what shines from the following statement: “Even if they did, there is no reason to assume that such terms remained static over time in any one community, let alone that they meant the same thing in different communities at the same time or in different regions or through time in separate places.” Wasn’t it in fact his research task to clarify this problem? Who will do his job – probably he will continue to be paid as a professor while those who work at McDonald’s will do the professor research to save the American science from the deculturation known well from Ruth Tringham, for instance? Especially reading that “There was not a predetermined trajectory. It was just as likely that the appropriate location for the human spirit could have become the body of an animal or in the walls and roof of a building.” (Bailey, 2013: 261) Is this a conclusion from analysis in the text, or thoughts and if latter, why such thoughts stay in the conclusions and do not have supporting evidence?
The conclusion follows with a such arrogant incorrectness that one must ask: If a student would fail making similar mistake, why is Bailey in a professor chair? This is what he wrote: “Local patterns in the association of specific grave goods with bodies of one sex or the other (or of one age range or another) began to emerge, so that by the end of the Neolithic (in the fourth millennium B.C.E) large cemeteries were in use with extraordinary concentrations of exotic grave goods often associated with adult male burials, as at Varna on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast.” Such sentence shows that Bailey has no knowledge on absolute chronology of Balkan prehistory, than, his article has nothing to do with science – science in prehistory is determined by chronology. It is well known that Varna cemetery dates from later fifth millennium and not from fourth millennium cal BCE. Putting Varna cemetery in the fourth millennium also means Bailey has no idea what is fourth millennium cal BCE, and if he wrote elsewhere about this period, it was a mechanical replication of written elsewhere without understanding by the author.
One absurd follows by another absurd. Bailey believes that “Neolithic” people gradually conceptualize the idea of big cemetery, while refers to the numerous graves from Mesolithic and states that these “isolated experimentations accelerated within the contexts and conditions of the Neolithic” (Bailey, 2013: 201).
The conclusion ends without becoming clear how the author answers the simplified and only partially theoretically true research problem at the beginning of the chapter.
The above critical analysis makes possible to make a very important forensic conclusions about a type of contemporary academically placed “professors” (probably through corruption): if there are signs of sociopathic style of science, it may relate to similar dangerous behavior. Such conclusion was made based on the analysis of the “works” of one of the most terrifying academically paid with our money person – Ruth Tringham.
Today science is like a forest – old and new trees have been growing. Unfortunately, unlike in the forest persons like Ruth Tringham and Douglass W Bailey have been using their professor chairs for behavior which not only is rejected from the moral of society but which is dangerous for everybody since it hurts deadly and attempts social killing of most innocent people. This behavior is with analogy in the communist psychotronic terrorism (e.g. Henrieta Todorova) and it may have direct relation since Douglass W Bailey did not allow most important publication on the psychotronic terrorists in archaeology to be published in Romanian archaeological journal. He is also on the board of a Bulgarian archaeological journal which is headed by most corrupted Bulgarian archaeologist connected with the crime in Bulgaria.
To hurt innocent people is crime but the law today is not enough develop to punish all real criminals. It should be also crime when the academic books have been used for publishing illiterate essays and writings in a sociopathic style. For this chapter the responsibility is shared with the editor Diane Bolger.
The power of the American democracy is that exception like Douglass W Bailey and Ruth Tringham hurt deadly although they are neither the social system nor majority. To survive hits of such amoral corrupted people is difficult and painful, although thanks to the American democracy, we, the most of American citizens, residents, legal and illegal – have the beauty of being intelligent, knowledgeable and full with optimism that tomorrow is always better than today and there is always chance of happiness – one just needs to be with open eyes not to miss it even when is under the pressure of most terrifying psychotronic terrorists and corrupted sociopathic behavior oriented people.
Bailey, D.W. (2013). Figurines, corporeality, and the origins of the gendered body. In: Bolger, D. (ed.), A companion to gender prehistory (pp. 244-264). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.