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:
"Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:23:24 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (85 lines)
Well said.  Thanks.
 
Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
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]
"It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years time."  --Terry Pratchett
 

________________________________

From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of King, Julia
Sent: Wed 11/2/2005 7:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Archaeological Toys



Dear Listmates,

I would like to second Mary Beaudry's reminder about critically
evaluating the nature of our sources in the interpretive process.  I
apologize in advance for this lengthy email, but this is a great topic
and I thank Mary for raising it.

As Jeffrey Boyer and Bob Schuyler point out, there is everything to be
gained from casting as wide a net as possible in the effort to locate
sources (what Bob describes as the need to use all the different lines
of evidence available to us, including people "old enough to remember").

I don't think it's the evidence per se, but rather the evaluation of
that evidence and how that evidence is used that is relevant to Mary's
point.  The narratives we assemble about artifacts and archaeological
context can be used to address all sorts of questions, including
legitimate issues that we might all agree are "presentist" in their
focus (and which I think Mary would say is fine as long as we recognize
that).  I take her warning to be to take care about the assumptions we
make about people who lived in the past: how past peoples thought about
and used artifacts may be - in fact, probably is - very different from
how social groups in the present think about and use them.  We all know
this, but I appreciate being reminded.

Indeed, while patterns suggesting that most people used artifacts in
this or that manner is of critical relevance to our work (i.e., most
boys played with marbles, girls with jacks), those individuals/groups of
individuals who deviate from these patterns are of interest as well
because of their relevance for addressing questions of change, for one.

A great example comes from a class I had with Bob Schuyler many moons
ago (but which I am, sigh, "old enough to remember") concerning the wine
bottle Marshall Becker found buried in an inverted position outside an
18th century dwelling in Pennsylvania.  Archaeological, social, and
historical context revealed a very different use - and meaning - for
this artifact; different even from other contemporary uses of wine
bottles by what we might consider the same group. 

Another example comes from archaeological exhibits in museums located on
what we consider the 'American founding sites.'  Sometimes these
exhibits present stories that are about the "birth" and development of
this or that American freedom, with archaeological artifacts used to
assert the reality of the story.  There is nothing inherently wrong with
narratives of this type, as long as we recognize that there are many
different stories (and, more to the point, many different plots) for
giving meaning to well organized archaeological assemblages.  But
whether the inhabitants of the "founding sites" (our term, not theirs)
saw it in quite this way is highly debatable; these stories end up
telling us far more about ourselves than about those early inhabitants.

And that's okay.  But we also want to know about how people of the past
meaningfully constituted their own lives, without the benefit of a
crystal ball.  All evidence is good, more or less, and striving for
objectivity is, to me, thinking critically.

Thanks for a most provocative discussion.

Julie King




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. 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2