Hi, Terry. Sorry if this seems like backsliding again, but I'm attracted to
the "symbol" as well as the "stuff."
 
At 08:59 AM 1/23/97 -0700, you wrote:
 
>Hey Len.  I think we pretty much agree.  We're a "stuff" oriented discipline
>trying to copy a "concept" oriented discipline.  To the degree that we
>try and figure out if these flakes were made by an Iroquois we are definitely
>in the realm of "science fiction."    We are overstepping the limitiations
>of these data.
>
 
I agree that it's important to understand the limitations of our
archaeological subject, but I also think that archaeologists can be
successful in determining meaningful archaeological contexts. I see this as
methodological problem, but, of course, related to a point of view that is
focused on meaningful problems.
 
>It doesn't make a difference what my father or the headhunter thought about
>the sheet if we have no way of knowing these things.  The concept of
"sheetness"
> clearly means different things to them but is this ethnicity or something
>else?
 
We need to employ a means of knowing that is contextual versus
"artifactual." I don't hold much hope that we could ever understand the
differences in meaning illustrated by your army sheet example. Nevertheless,
there are grades of archaeological context, and methods of studying them
that are differentially suited to this task.
 
As to whether or not the meaningful differences associated with the army
sheet example represent "ethnicity" or not, we have to look at how meaning
is created. The situation is important in the negotiation for meaning, but
so are a number of other processes which include the acculturation of the
actors, and their individual histories of social interaction and social
relation within the group(s) they are each primarily integrated. I would not
characterize this social web of meaningful action and relation as "ethnic,"
but would feel more comfortable with the connotations we commonly associate
with the word "culture."
 
>At  the point where we are analyzing the "stuff" we have our own
>concepts of sheets to work with and our own reasons for analysis.
>
 
Good point! Our method of understanding meaning in the archaeological Other
must include the means of evaluating and re-evaluating our interpretations
with respect to this problem. I would equate this with the ethnographer's
problem of coming to grips with an alien culture.
 
>Thanks for the comments.  I hope the group starts getting back onto the
>track and I think your thoughts will go a long way towards that goal.
>
 
Sorry for knocking us off track again!
 
Cheers,
 
--Lenny__