OK, I am decloaking!
 
I have to take issue with the idea that artifact assemblages are
error-free from the actors perspective.  While I understand the thrust of
the idea, I wonder about the following issue-  If we are doing
anthropological archaeology (to me, this means that we want to make
statements about CULTURE and its systems of meaning), then we are
interested in general and stereotypical schemas involving food,
environment, aesthetics, whatever.  I think that we would all agree that
these general schemas are very complex abstractions created by the
anthropologist/archaeologist that should consider cross-cutting contexts
of ethnicity, gender, age, economics, etc.  But they are abstractions
first and foremost, we create them as seemingly bounded systems so that we
can define them.
 
So here is the problem- artifacts are some of the symbols that individuals
and groups use to communicate these systems.  Take for example,
socio-economic status or class.  An individual will actively assemble
symbols, including artifacts, to constitute a class identity.  Not all
individuals do it "correctly".  Since no group is homogeneous, this should
not be a surprise.  How many communities have "new money" and "old money"?
Clothing is a wonderful example of this problem as well.  To be
"fashionable" is a cultural abstraction that requires knowledge of schemas
including such ideas as "goes", "matches", "in/out", and knowledge of what
is proper/improper for me to wear in schemas of gender, modesty, period,
status, birth, etc...  We all would agree (I think) that these ideas are
abstractions with lots of variability in how they are acted out, BUT we
can all spot someone who gets them wrong.  It does not matter if their
error is active or passive (whether they meant to violate schemas or not).
 
Are these errors not errors in perception no different than a person who
records their impressions of the Boston Massacre?  Archaeological data do
not simply reflect actions of persons.  ACTORS choose everything about
their material culture, both tacit and implicitly (See Cook, Yamin, and
McCarthy in HA 1996 30(4) for a discussion of this). ACTORS also make
mistakes in how they understand or attempt to constitute their culture
with other people.  Beware assumptions that promote simple formulas- "this
artifact pattern from this site indicates this pattern of socio-economic
behavior".  Interpretations should be deeply steeped in multiple contexts
and never, ever draw on a single artifact or type of artifact to make
statements that constitute large cultural systems.  In those cases where
we must do this, such as Larry McKee's fraternity pin in the slave
quarters find (Wow, Larry!), the story can be a tantalizing way to
inspire future research questions and draw out the creativity of the
investigator.  The fuzzyness of systems of meanings and the actor-based
"errors" in assemblages of material culture make reconstructions or
understandings of ethnicity or gender or whatever so very difficult (and
so much fun to try and construct!).
 
Just grinding my axe.
 
Tim