please forgive x-postings
 
It seems this discussion is occurring across both arch-l and hist-arch - or
perhaps they are separate but parallel threads.  Forgive me if some comments
seem to relate to something that was discussed on one list but not the other.
 
I think we are playing semantic games with ethnicity here.  By this term I
mean an identity adopted by or ascribed to a group of people in order to
differentiate this group from other groups.  In any case, the defined group
perceives itself or is perceived by others to somehow be parallel in some
way to at least one other group.  Hence we have us and them.
 
Second, identity as it is expressed by all people is an "us/them" system.
Schortmann's salient identity attempts to capture the fluid nature of this
identity system at multiple levels, including what we (viz. Barth 1969)
define as ethnic idenitity or, more commonly, ethnicity.
 
Third, since people today very much use identity in a flexible way to assert
or downplay relationships (much like kinship), I assume that such activities
existed in the past.
 
Fourth, since identity marking is fluid, we cannot solidly define discrete
ethnic groups on a large scale.  We are dealing with fuzzy-set theory - some
people will have identities that cross community borders (communities both
as defined by the people in such groups and by archaeologists from a
distance of time and space).  Hence, things such as artifact types and
culture phases must be clearly seen as essentially heuristic.  (I think here
is where many of us are tempted to go wrong, it is very easy to assume a
category that we define has meaning in the past even when we don't know this).
 
Fifth, since identity marking is fluid we must turn to displays of material
culture that reflect such dynamism.  Here style, however we eventually view
this, comes into play.  Ceramics, for instance, may play into this,
especially when they are produced by households or wlocal workshops trather
than made elsewhere and mass-markested into a community (ie historic
ceramics etc...)  True, there may some cultural preferences and we should
look at these, but these preferences will be constrained into the categories
of marketed goods rather than reflect the larger array of possible shapes,
sizes, colors etc  that can be manifest if the consumers also produce the
goods.  Clothing, as noted previously is also good, when we can get it.
Household construction and the use of space (perhaps especially the use of
space) are also important things that we might be able to excavate.
 
Bottom line - I think that ethnicity is being used rather simplistically in
some of our discussions, even being a straw man of sorts at time.  It is
nonetheless part of the larger suite of identity marking practices that I
think we need to come to terms with if we want to know about culture
process, cultural values, and sociopolitical organization.
 
The soapbox is now open.
 
thanks and I look forward to a resonse or 2.
 
cheers - john
 
John Staeck         There are 3 kinds of lies:
Anthropology            lies, damned lies, and statistics!
Luther College        paraphrase of Mark Twain, who
Decorah, IA 52101     attributes the comment to Benjamin
319-387-1284          Desraeli
[log in to unmask]