Thanks Carol for the thoughtful response. I'm glad to see HISTARCH actually
serving its purpose of making people think and stimulating them to share
ideas. I don't mean to dismiss the hard work of everyone who believes as you do,
but I still have to say that as far as I can tell these are largely faith
based beliefs. In archaeology we are at a disadvantage. We can't contact the
people who used symbols and ask what they mean by them. We are forced to make
inferential arguments and adjust them as better information comes to light.
Allison Wylie said years ago that archaeology was more "scientistic" than
scientific, and I agree. But that doesn't mean we can just abandon logic. Speaking
for myself, I see two stronger arguments being dismissed in favor of a third,
weak argument. So again, I'm willing to listen, but lets see some hard facts
in favor of this interpretation. Most of what I have seen consists of
researcher A referring to researcher B, who refers to C, who cites something like
"One scholar I read said "Africans didn't convert to Christianity -- they
converted Christianity to themselves" and accepts it as fact without asking where
the assertion came from to begin with, or whether it is valid. If recent
research that I may not have seen has come to light which stands as proof of
your interpretation please give me the references and I will reconsider my
position.
Carl
PS: regarding your final points about keeping an open mind and working from
a position of knowledge to interpret the evidence. In support of what you have
said, on the opposite end of this whole argument I have noticed that CRM
archaeologists working in the heartland of Gullah culture in South Carolina can
survey whole plantations and excavate both slave and freedmen's settlements
without ever even mentioning the word "Gullah" or showing any knowledge of
African American anthropology.....
In a message dated 8/24/2006 6:19:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Excuse me? At least 50 % (I've seen different stats, but they are all in the
same range) of the people enslaved in Africa and brought here came from the
Bakongo region, so would have been part of that larger spiritual
tradition...the region was (is) really huge. Many of the rest came from
Yoruba regions, and at some of the archaeological sites you question there
appears to be an admixture of uses which reflect both traditions. AND, yes,
Christianity too. That is people who were from, or were descended from,
Bakongo people did "use that symbol", in a variety of ways and guises. It
hardly matters whether the original potter who put the cross on the bowl or
whatever was a member of a Bakongo group. What's important is that someone
used THAT particular bowl, in a certain way, associated with other objects.
We had a similar discussion on this a few years ago, with the same
skepticism, and similar players. Which is fair enough, except for the
snarkiness.
One the one hand, skeptics will admit that they aren't up on the most recent
DATA. I'm talking about real data, not just speculation and untested
assumptions. On the other, they say they've "seen the evidence" and have
rejected it. C'mon...It's an evolving body of research, and the web of
associations --a growing network of examples -- between different sites,
groups, contexts, etc. is getting pretty huge by now. And, yes, even as
people were using found-and-created items in ways which may have referenced
their ancestral beliefs, they could also have embraced Christian symbols,
like crosses, in part because they were similar to those they were already
comfortable with. These are not mutually exclusive ideas or expressions.
Consider the fact that the Grace Methodist Church was founded at the Jordan
Plantation, during the same period in which some people at the plantation
appear to have been practicing African healing and other practices.
The EXPRESSED meanings of various symbols may have shifted to reflect the
context that people were living in, but that's not to say that there weren't
structural reasons why certain symbols and traditions found resonance with
some people when they were exposed to them in a different setting. And this
shows up in the material remains. One scholar I read said "Africans didn't
convert to Christianity -- they converted Christianity to themselves" (I
forget the citation, sorry, but it says what I am trying to say). And it's
not just "cosmograms", either -- the most recent research, not only from
archaeology but also folklore studies, sees the so-called "cosmogram" as
really being an expression of the importance of cardinal-direction symbols.
Which we've talked about before on this list. Either way, more and more
sites are showing this stuff. While it's true that some archaeologists are
indeed interested in finding it, if it's there, it's also true that these
sorts of artifacts and, more importantly, artifact contexts, WON'T be
noticed unless the right questions are asked by someone who is knowledgeable
about what to look for. AND who uses fine-grained field and analytical
methods which will reveal this level of detail in the deposit. Which gets me
into a whole other discussion about method, but I really don't want to go
there.
Are these connections "proved"?!? I know I'm showing my postprocessualist
stripes here, but BAH (said in the nicest possible way!). Buy the arguments,
or not, but at least get up to date on the most recent stuff and give the
researchers credit for doing sound archaeology, not just making this stuff
up.
Carol (I really did try to stay quiet...oh well).
****************************
Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
|