>
> African-Americans excavating African-American sites will probably have
> different perspectives on the sites.  This does not mean that other
> people are not qualified to excavate those sites.  If we limit excavation
> to people identified as belonging to whatever ethnicity we identify a
> site as belonging to, that leaves most of us out of excavating anything.
> (please excuse the awkward phrasing).  Next thing you know, we will have
> to get magdalenians and Neanderthals to excavate in Europe....
>
> Granted, interpretation of sites IS an issue of concern.
>
> Mary Ellin D'Agostino
> [log in to unmask]
>
 
        I agree with Mary Ellen.  To shut someone out of a site simply
because they are not of the persuasion of those being excavated, is in
itself shutting out a perspective that may shed light on the subject.
But I would offer this:  It would be improper to excavate such a sight
without the exhausting input from those who could offer a closer view of
the sight being excavated.
        An example:
                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.
        I guess what I am saying is that to shut out any view, is risk
the possibility of shutting out an important view..
                Sincerely,
                        John Buckler
                                [log in to unmask]