In reply to Mr. Reger's further comments, I was not suggesting that
an uneducated black person has more qualifications for writing a
history or interpreting an archaeological site than an educated
non-black simply because the site or history is related to
Afro-Americans.  What I was saying is that input from the black
community is important to keep our views from being as biased as they
can be.  I agree with the comment that a University or college
education is over rated, and feel that we should not feel that our
interpretations are right just because we have letters after our
names.  Here on the Northwest coast, some of the archaeologists are
making a huge effort to include Native people in the excavations and
interpretations of the sites we excavate.  This is important, because
they can tell us things that we could never know from the
archaeology.  In this case there is no written record, but in the
Afro-American situation there is.  Does this mean that the written
record is absolute and cannot be added to by the oral?  If that is
the case, why do historical archaeology at all.  Every form of
information we can get, from the ground, from the archives or from
the "unwashed masses" (a term which is very offensive, by the way)
should be considered when interpreting any history.
 
 
Sandra Sauer
Dept of Archaeology
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C.
V5A 1S6