Seems to me that all history is revisionist history. We "all" (read: most of us) agree that one of the most important roles of archaeology and history is to find, store, and maintain "facts," and we "all" (again read: most of us) agree that we pursue that role with a sense of urgency since those "facts" are in constant danger of disappearing from our sometimes-finger-tip grasp due to the practicalities of preservation and disturbance. Because so many of us practice our parts in this role within the realm of contract/consulting/client-based services (our part of Geoff's telling term: "the heritage industry"), however, we have to make frequent decisions, often without much prior notice (and often without much prior thought), about which "facts" to recover and which to let slide for another day or another site or another project. Add to those circumstances the ever-changing socio-political sensibilities within which we live and work (and to which we contribute), and we cannot help but be beset by "dilemmas" revolving around which "facts" will be presented to the public-at-large, and, perhaps more-dilemma-ish, HOW to present them.
Certainly, here in "the colonies," the federally-established criteria (which most states follow for their own jurisdictions) for assessing the potential significance of historical and archaeological sites, properties, and landscapes do not disallow inclusion on the basis of association with activities or persons found to be socially onerous or worse -- whether at the time of their origination or later; witness the presence of brothels and saloons on state and national registers of historic properties. For that matter, witness the presence of Monticello, home to the author of our Declaration of Independence -- making him a national hero -- who also kept slaves (at least) -- making him a potential national pariah whose lifestyle folks feel compelled to either ignore because of his otherwise unassailable contributions to national identity or to politely justify because of his times and his otherwise unassailable contributions to national identity. Heck, witness the halls of Congress, surely a den of innumerable iniquities from any point of view, temporal or social. And, it is important to remember that social flaws are socially defined, and are not limited to northern Euroamerican societies. One need only read Brooks' (2002) "Captives and Cousins: Slavery, Kinship, and Community in the Southwest Borderlands" to be struck by the number and magnitude of social settings in which people were "exchanged" within and between Native and European peoples in what would become the American Southwest. 
It strikes me, then, that a sign of a society that holds some sense of "enlightenment" (there's a loaded term) is that it openly acknowledges (if not embraces) its flaws and determines to learn from them, rather than attempting to expunge them from its history.
BUT, after patting ourselves on the back for our enlightenment, how do we point out that lavish antebellum mansions, to which visitors are inexorably drawn because of the sheer luxury, were built, not just on the profits from King Cotton (or tobacco or indigo or . . .), but on the lives of human chattel, without turning the plantation owners and their descendents into social criminals? Or should we try not to do so? Will people continue to flock to certain historic sites if we turn the site occupants into pariahs and criminals? And I do mean "if we turn . . ." because we will be integral participants, being the keepers of the "facts."
Is the "heritage industry" duty-bound not just to find and preserve history's facts but also to create forums for the dispersion of social mores, which will always be changing? Would that not put the heritage industry in a position of creating social mores? Is that a position in which I want to be?
 
Jeff
 
 
Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
Project Director
Office of Archaeological Studies
mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87501
tel: 505.827.6387          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
 

________________________________

From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of geoff carver
Sent: Tue 7/11/2006 1:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: sanitizing history?



another minor ethical dilemna; i sometimes look at archaeology as being a means for providing concrete evidence of "facts" that might otherwise disappear down the "memory hole"
so: if you rename streets that were originally named in honour of slave-traders, are you covering up an uncomfortable truth? and should "penny lane" be an exception?
i think there's already a problem in the british heritage industry, with showing off all those palatial homes without talking enuf about just how they were paid for; as in, the slave-trade has already been whitewashed enuf...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wxnote10-4/BNStory/Entertainment/home 



Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. -- This email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.