Ron -
Love the fact that you used the term "Oral History" rather than
"Ethnographic Interviewing," whatever that is.
Keep in mind that Historians see an oral history interview as only another
piece of evidence to be sifted and evaluated for its veracity, just like
the Historian would dissect a diary, letter, photo, map, etc. to test its
reliability. An Oral History is not "History' until that analysis is done,
and no Historian would ever place blind faith in such an interview, or any
other piece of evidence w/o such an analysis.
Yes, the historical record can produce biases, Oral History is an excellent
example as I indicate above and as you do below, but the archaeological
record has its inherent biases, too, based on what people selectively
dispose of, and what materials survive in the earth and what materials
don't.
This why I keep coming back over-and-over again for the HAs to have an
equal amount of training in History as they do in making nice maps and
studying feminist theory. I think that in the long run, how one responds to
that will dictate where the appropriate academic home for HA should be.
(I think that my friends who have have not been trained in
prehistoric-oriented antro departments and who work on the archeology of
Rome, Greece, etc. would love to know that they do trash work because their
degrees are not in anthro!!)
History is the study of human behavior, i.e why people do that they do and
the consequences of their actions. Our jobs are to take those factors into
account from whatever sources we find them in.
Cheerio!
Carl "the Geezer" B.
Ron May
<[log in to unmask]
> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
HISTORICAL cc
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask] Subject
> Re: Hysterical Archaeology
07/18/2007 09:53
PM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
Ah, but oral history only goes so far. I recall interviewing an 86-year old
World War II veteran and finding he knew nothing of the World War I
artifacts
housed in the attic of the local American Legion Hall (in fact, none of
those
WW II vets could walk up the staircase to see the stuff in the attic). I
suspect few informants can tell us much of a 18th century Hispanic adobe
location.
Not all historical diaries and "geezer accounts" are accurate. During my
tenure in local government, a local historical archaeologist hired an
historian
to search for a "missing" 1840s adobe in a local rancho. They targeted a
piece
of land using geezer accounts, newspaper records, and one or two Canary
Island palm trees as guidance and then ripped up the land using a backhoe
in
search of the legendary adobe. But to no avail. Then I enlisted the
assistance
of a local land surveyor and he found a record of survey at the local
government office and triangulated the sightings of "the adobe house,"
which proved to
be a mile or so east of the palm trees. Then I found a 1970s vintage
survey
report prepared by a couple of prehistorians that commented, "mound of
hard
mud associated with broken glass, beads, and white ceramics." My point
here is
that oral history, interviews with old timers, and living memory is only
one
tool in the historical archaeology tool kit.
Should the prehistorians have received training in historical archaeology
before surveying a large tract of land with a known Mexican era adobe and
native
village in contact with European Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Should the historical archaeologists have learned land surveying to access
and
thoroughly use records of survey notes in search of the adobe? How would
an
historical archaeologist esconced in a history department have approached
the
issue?
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
|
