In reading through the latest flurry of messages, I'm starting to see
a thread emerging:
 
Cohen-Williams wrote:  "Remember, we are discussing archaeology here, not
social standards."
 
Reger wrote:  "You're right 'it doesn't take a whole lot of training and
education to have valid and /or significant opinions on archaeological
interpretations' -- but I find they are rarely informed opinions."
 
D'Agostino wrote: "Anyway, people without training may not come up with
sophistocated interpretations, but they do often point out flaws in
reasoning and weak argumnets that we 'trained professionals' make.
 
Sauer wrote:  "Granted, an education is important, but the lack of one does
not mean someone can't have an opinion and an important input."
 
Clearly (at least to me), these points all reflect one thing, there is a
difference between "academic knowledge" and "indigenous knowledge" and that
the academicians have often neglected the points of view of the
non-academicians.  (This is a rather old complaint of the general public.)
Before I go further, let me acknowledge the contributions of avocational
archaeologists of all races and cultures for their contributions to the
field.  There are a great many amateur archaeologists who are very
knowledgeable.
 
To continue, now that the non-academics have been able to grab the
attention of academic archaeology through the legislative process, it may
be that professionally-trained archaeologists have to pay more attention to
the folks that visit the sites.  I agree that a non-professional can point
out mistakes that I might make but as a prehistoric archaeologist (I know
I'm in the wrong e-mail group), I don't believe that a modern-day Native
American (non-professionally trained) is any more informed about the
prehistoric past than I am.  Additionally, and more in line with the
present discussion, I refuse to believe that a modern-day African-American
(non-professionally trained) is any more knowledgeable about a 16th or 17th
century African-American slave quarters than the archaeologists who study
those sites.  Certainly they may have different (and valuable) points of
view (as would anyone with a different upbringing and education) but is a
*different* point of view any more accurate (as D'Agostino seems to think
with her Deetz and Jackson references)?
 
But this slips away from Tom's original question (paraphrased here, correct
me if I'm wrong):  does one need to be African-American to work on
African-American sites?  I'd say no.  Sure all the social conditioning
arguments have their points but 20th century social conditioning does not
equate with 16th, 17th, 18th, and early 19th century African American life
in America.  As formal education does not give us the vision to make
perfect interpretations, neither does some spiritual/social conditioning
that Sauer and D'Agostino seem to argue connects various ethnic groups
through time.
 
All we're talking about are different views and I prefer to believe that
either educated professionals or avocational archaeologists with extensive
training across broad cultural areas will have the best and most informed
views regardless of race or ethnicity (unless we're dealing with modern
sites - as with a garbage project).
 
Sorry for the rambling, a lost prehistorian,
 
Dave.
 
David McKivergan, Department of Anthropology, Baldwin Hall,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
(706) 542-3922, Internet:  [log in to unmask]