Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:57:51 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Funny you should mention that (depersonalization) because even when we see
someone investigating the house of a person, the report always tries to
arrange the data into a more universal model to generalize about the kind of person
(as opposed to the individual). It is almost as if specifically addressing
how the person used the artifacts would be wrong. This harkens back to the
"relevance thread" several months ago. Does the person have to be King Tut in
order to be worthy of individual analysis? In fact, does the individual have to
meet National Register landmark significance in order to justify
investigation? When investigation of the houses and privies of the "common man"
gradually became acceptable in the 1980s, the archaeology reports still attempted to
plug the data into some sort of cumulative model, rather than simply accept
the person as worthy of examination. And, I might add, that most of the common
people under investigation were exotic or minorities within the society,
rather than the rank and file. Perhaps the opposite of Marxist archaeology would
be to expose the common people of the very industries operated by fascist or
totalitarian societies and not try to reduce their value as mere cumulative
data in a grander scheme?
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
|
|
|