On the poverty of academic imagination: a response to Bentley & O'Brien

  • Ingold T
2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Many years ago, I taught a course at the University of Aberdeen on the ‘4As’ of anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture (Ingold 2013). As we had been discussing flint-knapping, I invited the master-knapper, John Lord, to give a demonstration. We watched in awe as he skilfully detached flakes from a flint nodule of irregular shape to reveal the classical, bifacial form of an Acheulean handaxe. Then it was our turn to use wooden or antler hammers to detach flakes from fragments of flint. After an hour or two, none of us had made any headway. What looked simple in practised hands would have required years to learn, not a single afternoon! Nevertheless, the workshop taught us an important lesson. As Bentley and O'Brien (2024) remind us, mastering the skills to make an Acheulean biface requires hundreds of hours of practice. The question is, why does it need so long? What is going on during these many hours?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ingold, T. (2024). On the poverty of academic imagination: a response to Bentley & O’Brien. Antiquity, 98(401), 1417–1419. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.106

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free