Pat - I don't want to sound negative, but I would point out that the
concept of "Intolerance" as used in the US stems from the abolitionists
of the 19th century who were "Intolerant" of slavery. Thus people in
favor of slavery were "tolerant" of it. So, yes I'd agree its a
cultural construct, and I'd add that it is one that would have so much
variation in internal meaning that recognizing it and interpreting it
in the archaeological record seems next to impossible. But I am willing
to be tolerant of your efforts and look forward to seeing the results.
If you haven't already you might want to read Clifford Geertz's essay
"Common Sense as a Cultural System."   best of luck, Carl Steen

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:33:11 +0100
Subject: Archaeology of Tolerance

  In message <[log in to unmask]>, Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>what would an "archaeology of tolerance" look like? how would we know
it if=
> we saw it...?

That's what I'm interested in!  Perhaps it is looking for difference
which carries meaning, but is not placed within hierarchical and
discriminatory structures?

Perhaps the idea of tolerance is a cultural construct, and that makes
looking for it using archaeological techniques very difficult - if not
impossible?  But what then are we to do as historical archaeologists
faced with a culture which is in documents self-defining or defined as
'tolerant' - do we throw up our hands and say that archaeology has
nothing to say about this (self)-description, or is there something to
contribute?

Perhaps there are tolerances in the past that we are simply not seeing,
because the difference only means something to us when we put it in a
structure of intolerance and social hierarchy?

I guess one place to start would be by looking at a context which is
supposed to be tolerant (for example, religious tolerance in New York
city) and seeing what that looks like, and comparing it with somewhere
similar in many respects, apart from that (asserted) toleration.

I'm interested in the idea of 'archaeology of tolerance' both because
I'm studying a group which self-defines as tolerant (the 'Dutch'), and
because it seems to me that archaeology as a discipline is particularly
attuned to, and good at, exploring conflict, but not so good with
tolerance.  That situation is, I feel, a product of the nature of the
evidence we work with. Not to mention that we tell stories, and without
conflict, there is no plot. But does it lead to a skewed portrayal of
humanity in the tales we tell?

My very strange lifestyle, which involves reading theory and attending
science fiction conventions also is leading me to question the idea that
identity is most manifest at boundaries, when resources are being
competed for, etc.  Tolerance, too, seems to support the use of material
culture to express or explore identity.

It also makes for an interesting thought-experiment: if a group defines
itself as tolerant, and is threatened/resources become scarce, does more
tolerance get expressed?  Even if that means acting to your own
disadvantage by accommodating the needs of those who are competing or
threatening your group?

Best wishes to all,

Pat
--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now,
                    but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)