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.