Carl,
Well, thanks for your response as well...though for the sake of argument in
this type of forum, it would be useful perhaps to presume that most of us
do read critically and do ask where assertions come from. Just because I
didn't go into all that doesn't mean I don't. I think we will, as before,
just have to agree to disagree, even though I still say that the evidence is
mounting (and that the "hard facts" are accumulating!). And to tell the
truth I don't have time to put together a list of recent references...though
the African Diaspora Newsletter/web site would probably offer some you
haven't seen, since Chris Fennell works hard to keep it up to date. I also
may be able to scare up a couple of grey lit pieces...write me off list if
you want me to try and find them.
But I'd like to put that aside for the moment, and, first, to agree with
your comment about some CRM archaeology and some African American sites.
While that too is another issue that I just don't have the energy to get
into (and besides, because I don't DO CRM archaeology, it's perhaps
addressed better by others), I do tend to agree with you, because similar
problems arise in Texas.
Mainly, though, I would also like to return to one of your earlier points,
which I do think was important.
In your experience, some people have negative responses to the word
"hoodoo". In other archaeologists' experience, they have been able to use
this word, and similar ones like voodoo etc., with no problem.
My point, which leads from yours, is that when "we" are speaking with
"public/s" about our work, we need to know our audiences well before we use
words and terms and assumptions that we know some will find unsettling. In
my case, I speak with many groups composed of people who are conservative
Christians, and they do indeed see "hoodoo" as deragatory. I also speak with
those who find it interesting and aren't bothered by it. The best way to
share these ideas to people is to test the waters carefully. I do use the
term in public talks and so on, but I don't just toss it out there,
assuming that everyone will understand it in the same way I do. I
contextualize it carefully, and position it respectfully as part of a long
and honorable spiritual tradition. This tends to open any minds which may be
closed to the idea, and also helps in getting thoughtful response from
people, which is after all one reason I am speaking with them in the first
place. I am sure that Mark and others who work in this area are similarly
careful, given the success they've had in developing collaborative
interpretations of the data. In short, your point -- that we should take
care with the words we use -- is important.
OK, that's it for me. Classes start this week so this sort of fun has to
come to a stop! Cheers,
Carol
****************************
Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
1638 Branard
Houston, TX 77006
www.webarchaeology.com
www.publicarchaeology.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Steen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Concealed objects in buildings
>
> 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.
>
>
>
|