HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
William Reger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:47:48 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
Greetings!
 
I am not an archeologist, but I am an historian interested in archeology as
a source for understanding the past.  The following are a few comments I
have on this thread:
 
>> African-Americans excavating African-American sites will probably have
>> different perspectives on the sites.
I disagree that the african-american experience can in any way shed light
on history without the benefit of schooling, extensive reading, experience,
and the long hours of contemplation which set scholars apart from the great
unwashed masses...in other words, it's the understanding, not the race,
that counts.
 
>                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.
In light of the above opinion, I fail to understand why the dig Mr. Buckler
refers to here "suffered" because there were not more african-americans
present.  Was the contribution of the one fellow unsatisfactory for some
reason?  Or was he such a benefit to the dig that you wished more like him
were around?  Why should your understanding of the archeological data
involved be any less valid than his?  I assume neither of you have felt the
sting of the lash, the weight of chains, the prickle of cotton stalks
(which from my reading I understand could seriously lacerate the hands of
the pickers), the frustration of bondage.  What possible insight could the
color of a man's skin give him when looking at history?
 
We had a similar discussion of this on the intellectual history list with
respect to what gender and race contribute to a scholar's ability to teach,
and I noticed there was a healthy show of support for the idea that
_neither_ race nor gender could significantly determine the skill of a
teacher.   I would suggest the same is true for archeology.
 
William M. Reger IV
(217)352-6930
[log in to unmask]
 
Department of History           Voc. & Tech. Ed.
309 Gregory Hall, UIUC          345 Education Bldg., UIUC
(217) 333-1155                  (217) 333-0807

ATOM RSS1 RSS2