In the most recent SAA newsletter (Vol.13, no. 1. p. 3), Lawrenec E. Moore
of the Heritage Resources Offices in Virginia wrote a reply (attack) on
Leone and Potter's insistence that historical archaeology could be the
study of capitalism.  Now, this is what I understand to be the center of
Moore's arguement:
 
        "...,there are several reasons why the study of capitalism will
        not unify historical archaeology. The first come from Leone and Potter's
        opening sentence: "For the last 20 years, historical
        archaeologist have argued that capitalism should be a central
        focus for historical archaeological research."  Now, if the concept
        has not been accepted in 20 years then it is unlikely that it
        will be accepted in the near future.  Very few archaeologists
        have actually argued for this position.  Leone and Potter mislead
        their readers to think that a minority group represents the field
        of historical archaeology."
 
He goes on to say:
 
        "Most American archaeologists are willing to respect Marxist
        interpretation but are not necessarily interested in being
        critical of their own society."
 
Now, I will attempt to enage in a bit of generalization myself.  Firstly,
many historical archaeologists have made, for the most part simplistic,
defenses againts Mark Leone's project.  Leone's arrival in the scene of
historical archaeology, has create an effect that will (rather should)
change the ways in which we view the past and our we in the present
construct and re-construct the past.  Archaeology, as a science or a
mode of social reconstruction is an enabler in our efforts to understand
ourselve through the eyes of others.  In my view, Leone's projects is not
one that seeks to unify the discpline, the discipline will never be
unified.  Instead Leone has, in the last ten years or so, built an
apparatus for explaning the essence and appearance of the "historical"
within historical archaeology.  This is to say that by positioning
ideology as a central category in the study of the past through
historical archaeology, he has enabled us (atleast those of us who are
willing to listen) to recognize the rhetorical and material contradictions
in the past and our deployment of that past as a form of social
solidarity.  Furthermore, such an epistemological break was necessary,
given that the researches of the few years preceeding his intervention
were characterized by an obsession with and a overglorification of the
essences of the past--i.e., "the Modern Period higlights a unique
evolutionary change within the human time line--a true cultural
take-off" (Moore, 1995:3).
 
        Well, ther are two thinks I would ilke to  put up for debate.
Why is there still a confusion about marxism and communism and the
study of capitalism?  what is it about the word MARXISM that so many
archaeologist hate?   The way I see it, Moore's attack was an
inefficient way at polemicizing the struggle between the processualist
and postprocessaulists.
 
I would appreciate more comments and friendly debate on this topic,
thanks.
 
Best, Abdul-karim Mustapha
University of Maryland at College Park
[log in to unmask]