Seems to me that evidence for variation in patterns in the archaeological record may be pointing toward (if not directly at) sociocultural tolerance.  For instance, in a non-historical archaeological example, the orientations of prehistoric puebloan pit structures in the Four Corners region of the Southwest are considerably, and consistently, different than those of prehistoric puebloan pit structures in the northern Rio Grande Valley.  Now, there is certainly some variation on both samples (not all in the former group are oriented strictly north-south and not all in the latter group are oriented strictly northwest-southeast), but the variation within sample groups is, overall, smaller than the variation between them.  So, there is a tolerance level for pit structure orientation that differs between regions, and that allows for variation within regions.  In turn, the patterns may be interpreted in terms of world-views and ethnicity, which is where the questions get interesting.  What was or was not acceptable in structural orientation, what is that telling us about how important structural orientation was to those folks, and how do we relate that information to stable and changing sociocultural conditions?
Seems to me, then, that recognizing "tolerance" in the archaeological record requires a larger-than-one-site perspective.  If "tolerance" (in structural orientation or human rights) is a cultural construct and not "merely" an individual concept, it must leave patterns in human behavior.  If those patterns are expressed materially, they may be(though not assuredly will be) archaeologically visible.  Using Steen's example of slavery, can we not say that 18th and early 19th century America was "tolerant" of this practice because we have, aside from a plethora of documentary evidence, archaeological evidence of the practice as well?  Within that large pattern, can we discern "smaller" patterns that may suggest the degrees to which certain groups of people were more or less tolerant of the practice (taking into account archaeological evidence for, for instance, the economic standing(s) of those people at any given point in time, or through time)?  Is the archaeological evidence for the presence of slaves the same in urban settings as it is in rural settings (since it wasn't only the plantation owners who owned slaves)?
The issue, clearly, is how, in particular settings (and in more general temporal and spatial settings), a cultural construct produces patterned behavior(s) and, in turn, how (or if) that(ose) behavior(s) produce(s) patterns in material evidence.  In New Mexico, slavery as practiced by "Spanish" Euroamericans differed considerably from that practiced by citizens of the United States during the same time periods, and the ways in which slaves were obtained, acculturated, and utilized (to put it pretty clinically) were correspondingly different.  We should, therefore, expect to see different manifestations of the practice, in behavior and materially (if the latter is visible at all).
Hmmm . . . I need to look for Geertz' paper.
Jeff Boyer 
 
 
Jeffrey L. Boyer
Office of Archaeological Studies
P.O. Box 2087
Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
tel: 505.827.6343
fax: 505.827.3904
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

________________________________

From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of Carl Steen
Sent: Sat 6/11/2005 11:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeology of Tolerance



Pat - I don't want to sound negative, but I would point out that the
concept of "Intolerance" as used in the US stems from the abolitionists
of the 19th century who were "Intolerant" of slavery. Thus people in
favor of slavery were "tolerant" of it. So, yes I'd agree its a
cultural construct, and I'd add that it is one that would have so much
variation in internal meaning that recognizing it and interpreting it
in the archaeological record seems next to impossible. But I am willing
to be tolerant of your efforts and look forward to seeing the results.
If you haven't already you might want to read Clifford Geertz's essay
"Common Sense as a Cultural System."   best of luck, Carl Steen

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:33:11 +0100
Subject: Archaeology of Tolerance

  In message <[log in to unmask]>, Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>what would an "archaeology of tolerance" look like? how would we know
it if=
> we saw it...?

That's what I'm interested in!  Perhaps it is looking for difference
which carries meaning, but is not placed within hierarchical and
discriminatory structures?

Perhaps the idea of tolerance is a cultural construct, and that makes
looking for it using archaeological techniques very difficult - if not
impossible?  But what then are we to do as historical archaeologists
faced with a culture which is in documents self-defining or defined as
'tolerant' - do we throw up our hands and say that archaeology has
nothing to say about this (self)-description, or is there something to
contribute?

Perhaps there are tolerances in the past that we are simply not seeing,
because the difference only means something to us when we put it in a
structure of intolerance and social hierarchy?

I guess one place to start would be by looking at a context which is
supposed to be tolerant (for example, religious tolerance in New York
city) and seeing what that looks like, and comparing it with somewhere
similar in many respects, apart from that (asserted) toleration.

I'm interested in the idea of 'archaeology of tolerance' both because
I'm studying a group which self-defines as tolerant (the 'Dutch'), and
because it seems to me that archaeology as a discipline is particularly
attuned to, and good at, exploring conflict, but not so good with
tolerance.  That situation is, I feel, a product of the nature of the
evidence we work with. Not to mention that we tell stories, and without
conflict, there is no plot. But does it lead to a skewed portrayal of
humanity in the tales we tell?

My very strange lifestyle, which involves reading theory and attending
science fiction conventions also is leading me to question the idea that
identity is most manifest at boundaries, when resources are being
competed for, etc.  Tolerance, too, seems to support the use of material
culture to express or explore identity.

It also makes for an interesting thought-experiment: if a group defines
itself as tolerant, and is threatened/resources become scarce, does more
tolerance get expressed?  Even if that means acting to your own
disadvantage by accommodating the needs of those who are competing or
threatening your group?

Best wishes to all,

Pat
--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now,
                    but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail,including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.