It is not social conditioning, but a cultural perspective and cultural
knowledge that is important. These WILL affect how one interprets the
archaeological record.
 
The  example of the black burying ground at "Parting Ways" given by
James Deetz is an example:  Local tradition had it that it was a burial
ground, but the covering of the area by "trash" made the archaeologists
doubt it--until African-Americans pointed out that grave goods (pots,
pipes, bottles, etc.) were often placed on top of the graves.  Still,
most of the white archaeologists wanted to excavate to confirm that it
was a cemetary....
 
Cultural background provides and essenctial source of knowledge which can
be partially duplicated by learning facts and traits about another culture.
 
Another good example is Tom Jackson's experience in California
archaeology. When he took local Native Californian's out to look at
potential prehistoric sites, they not only told him that there would be
sites, but indicated where various features would be, why there would be
a site there--the way the land was shaped and the flora played a large
part--and then walked over to where the pestles would be stored and
pulled them from the rocks they were stored in.  This was all cultural
knowledge that was painstakingly pieced together by archaeologists, but
effortlessly "known" by the decendents of the people who had created the
sites.
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]
 
 
On Thu, 2 Jun 1994, Anita Cohen-Williams wrote:
 
> Yes, but how can you see social conditioning in the artifacts? Remember, we
> are discussing archaeology here, not social standards.
>
> Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
> Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
> PHONE: (602) 965-4579              FAX: (602) 965-9169
> BITNET: IACAGC@ASUACAD    INTERNET: [log in to unmask]
>