>
> Greetings!
>
> I am not an archeologist, but I am an historian interested in archeology as
> a source for understanding the past.  The following are a few comments I
> have on this thread:
>
> >                While at a field school in Annapolis, we  excavated
> >the home of a freed slave (it is now known as the Maynard-Burgess house).
> >The excavators included only one African-American.  In my opinion, this
> >dig suffered because of that;  at times I felt I was operating in a
> >vacuum, unable to confidently offer an opinion.  However, that experience
> >opened up my world enough that I began to read much more widely in that
> >field.
> In light of the above opinion, I fail to understand why the dig Mr. Buckler
> refers to here "suffered" because there were not more african-americans
> present.  Was the contribution of the one fellow unsatisfactory for some
> reason?  Or was he such a benefit to the dig that you wished more like him
> were around?  Why should your understanding of the archeological data
> involved be any less valid than his?  I assume neither of you have felt the
> sting of the lash, the weight of chains, the prickle of cotton stalks
> (which from my reading I understand could seriously lacerate the hands of
> the pickers), the frustration of bondage.  What possible insight could the
> color of a man's skin give him when looking at history?
 
> William M. Reger IV
> (217)352-6930
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Department of History           Voc. & Tech. Ed.
> 309 Gregory Hall, UIUC          345 Education Bldg., UIUC
> (217) 333-1155                  (217) 333-0807
>
  William:
        Skin color has nothing to do with it.  Its the perspective that
matters.  Archaeologists should seek out information that can shed new
light on their work wherever they can.  The trap of this is that you get
caught up in race/gender discussions where skin color and gender is the
only thing that matters.  But that's not it at all.  Everyone brings a
whole baggage of information, ideas and history based on their cultural
background.  You can't help but include these in your interpretations.
To bring other ideas and information into the play other than just your
own can only help.  It would have been nice to see how the site (the
Maynard-Burgess house) could be seen and interpreted through eyes other
than my own, through backgrounds less similar to me.
        John Buckler
                [log in to unmask]