HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"L. D Mouer" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:29:32 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (45 lines)
Shannon, I think the question you put forward is a good one, but Chris
Matthews's response is, in my opinion, the kind of leaping to
interpretative conclusions that plagues too much of postmodernist thought.
Sure it's fun to think about, as he says, but such conclusions require a
deep exploration of contexts. We've discussed pierced coins and token
here not long ago and, as I recall, we decided the practice is very
widespread across times and cultures, and probably has no universal
interpretation. As you know, pierced coins are still worn on anklets by
many black women in the South, and I am not sure you'd get a universal
response as to the meaning of those among contemporary "subjects." Maria
Franklin has suggested that there is a widespread West-African-derived use
of metal talismans as spirit-catchers, and money is worn by many people
throughout the world as a simple "good luck token"--where doies that term
come from--or as a sign of wealth.
 
Indeed, as Chriss suggests, using any object in a manner other than that
for which it was originally intended is an act of "re-interpretation," (or
I would prefer "recontextualization," but a Marxist-friendly reading of
appropriation, etc., requires a lot more back-up than the fact that it
makes Chris, or others, feel good to think about it.
 
Dan
 
 
 
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Shannon Dawdy wrote:
 
> Here in Louisiana, I have found a number of late-19th century tokens.  Most of
> them seem to come from sugar plantations and lumber companies.  Perhaps you
> know this already, but workers were often paid in tokens rather than money -
> tokens which were only good at the company store.  The issues of power
> and economic control are obvious.
>
> Interestingly, not a few of these tokens are pierced, to be worn as amulets.
> Here where mojo and gris-gris are still used, the use was probably
> magical/medicinal.  The post-processual question is, did the wearer care what
> the former significance of the token was (as a token of debt-peonage?) in its
> adapted use?
>
> -- Shannon Dawdy
> Greater New Orleans Archaeology Program
> University of New Orleans
> [log in to unmask]
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2