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.
>
>
>