Footnotes to Comments by Jeffrey L. Boyer:

         I was also going to respond to Mary's astonishment but Jeff Boyer 
did a fine job and made most of my points.

         The site in question dates between 1861 and 2005 and most of the 
deposits and features date between 1900+ and the middle or later part of 
the 20th century. The discussion has been very interesting and informative.

         The sources Mary mentions are helpful and we would all appreciate 
a look at the interpretative bibliography.

         On a more significant level, we all know the current 
correct-thinking cues:  essentialism, presentism, contextual, etc. -
however, that does not mean all of us buy into the current fads. For 
example, "essentialism", as an attack mode, is, in my opinion a misplaced 
and stupid argument. Either things have an "essence" (they exist) or they 
do not and most arguments against essentialism on analysis involve an 
attempt to substitute one set of essences for another (usually with a 
political agenda attached). In fact, "essentializing schema" are the basis 
of science and always will be. "Context" in archaeology is indeed primary 
but considering the nature of the formation of the archaeological record it 
can not stand alone and frequently, all too frequently, will fail to answer 
the questions being asked.

         Almost all of our sources of information (part of an 
archaeological site, a primary document, an oral historic account, an
ethnographic interview) are particularistic and very narrow. We need to use 
all the different lines of evidence available to us and talking with people 
who are old enough to remember a specific historic period within a specific 
cultural system should not astonish anyone. Most of this discussion did not 
project things back before the 20th century, actually most focused on the 
middle of the 20th century, or outside of one national cultural system. 
Some of the comments on regional variation and, yes, even individual 
variation, were also very informative. Science works on patterns and the 
probability that in the mid-20th century in America most boys played 
marbles while most girls, in contrast, played jacks - assuming this 
correlation is correct - is an important observation. The literature on 
toys in history (secondary, scholarly literature) is also important; 
however, I suspect if you look at any such source closely you will find 
that it is based in turn on a fairly narrow (and perhaps biased) foundation 
of a very few primary sources.

         This has been an excellent discussion on HISTARCH but, to follow 
Mary's lead, do people know of other sources for the use of marbles and 
jacks in the literature? Also are there any published primary sources 
contemporary with the use of these toys?

                                                                 Bob Schuyler

At 01:50 PM 11/1/2005, you wrote:
>Mary,
>Well . . . I'm not sure why this would be astounding.  One might see this=
>  stream of conversation as the product of "informants" providing ethnogra=
>phic data on the contexts and uses (not to say "functions") of certain ob=
>jects from their own childhoods, and on their memories and understandings=
>  of socio-historical traditions regarding objects with similar morphologi=
>cal characteristics.  Those data could, then, be tested for temporal and =
>spatial accuracy through additional, perhaps more systematic, data collec=
>tion using both ethnographic and archaeological methods.  However, as som=
>eone who has participated in more than a couple of ethnographic interview=
>s hoping for information that might be useful in archaeological interpret=
>ation, I have witnessed a number of such free-flowing, stream-of-consciou=
>sness discussions whose directions could only barely -- if at all -- be c=
>ontrolled by the interviewers.  The information so gathered is of no less=
>  value just because the interviews did not proceed like Dragnet testimony=
>  ("Just the facts, ma'am").  Mind you, I'm no post-modernist, I hope for =
>objectivity, and I like my systematic, structured data collection as much=
>  as the next archaeologist, but I cannot see how this conversation consti=
>tutes "the tendency to universalize human experience."  Quite to the cont=
>rary, in fact -- I see informants who are members of the same "national" =
>socio-cultural structure, but of different communities and other sub-grou=
>ps, pointing out both similarities and differences in the contexts and us=
>es (again, not to say "function") of childhood toys.  Those similarities =
>and differences are, according to the information so far obtained, both t=
>emporal and spatial, and might provide testable models for use by both et=
>hnographers and archaeologists working, perhaps first, with questions inv=
>olving mid- to late-20th century contexts and, perhaps later, with questi=
>ons involving older contexts or contexts that cross-cut nationality.  Thi=
>s may be particularly important in light of the early parts of this conve=
>rsation that involved the interaction of legislative temporal mandates fo=
>r cultural resources investigations and the ages of individual archaeolog=
>ists conducting those investigations (i.e., digging up my own childhood).=
>
>I wonder if we're not seeing the old emic-etic debate here, perhaps posit=
>ing the notion that anthropologists (including archaeologists) should be =
>non-participant observers.  However, I'm not clear on why anthropologists=
>  would not be valuable informants in their own right.  Since we, too, are=
>  living, breathing human beings (with a couple of exceptions, but we won'=
>t go into that), our recognition of our own life-experiences does not, in=
>  and of itself, constitute "presentism" or "essentializing schema" in our=
>  work, although, to be sure, we must be careful to be objective about the=
>  impacts of our own experiences in our investigations (but isn't that alw=
>ays the case?).
>Having said all that, I, for one, would love to receive your bib of refer=
>ences that would aid in interpretation of "toys" in archaeological contex=
>ts.  If there is a general agreement on hist-arch, I'd suggest you make i=
>t available to all.  If not, please send it to me off-list.  And thanks,=20=
>
>Jeff
>=20
>Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
>Office of Archaeological Studies
>P.O. Box 2087
>Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
>tel: 505.827.6343
>fax: 505.827.3904
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>"It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years time.=
>"  --Terry Pratchett
>=20
>
>________________________________
>
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of Mary C. Beaudry
>Sent: Tue 11/1/2005 5:47 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Archaeological Toys
>
>
>
>I am astounded by this thread.  Contextual analysis might encourage
>reflexivity, but I do not think that our own childhoods should form
>the basis for artifact interpretation, unless, of course, we are just
>analyzing ourselves (which is fine, so long as it is not disguised as
>the study of 19th-century or other childhoods).  The  variability of
>experiences among list members underscores my point that we must
>attend to context and avoid the tendency to universalize human
>experience.
>
>There is a growing body of literature on the archaeology of children
>and childhood as well as a substantial body of literature on artifact
>interpretation that explicitly rejects one-to-one formulations of
>artifacts according to function, gender associations, age, etc., and
>of the approaches that posit rigid connections between objects and
>their meanings and uses (e.g., boys with marbles-marbles often used
>by adults for gambling, for instance-archaeological, cultural, and
>historical context of finds fosters nuanced interpretations).
>
>A good example of a contextual, interpretive analysis of marbles is
>Yamin's article in the International Journal of Historical
>Archaeology (forget exact citation).  There's Jane Baxter's book on
>the archaeology of childhood, Laurie Wilkie's & the Praetzellises'
>work, etc., etc.  Anthropological archaeologists had, I thought,
>developed techniques for avoiding presentism and are attempting to
>avoid essentializing schema in their work.
>
>I can provide a bibliography (on interpretation, not just
>identification) if list members are interested.
>
>MCB
>
>
>
>
>Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for the=
>  sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and p=
>rivileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distri=
>bution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico In=
>spection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended recipient, pl=
>ease contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. -- This e=
>mail has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.=20

Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
3260 South Street
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]