Jay Cunningham wrote:
"For example, Precolombian 'history' under Americanist Archaeology tends to
be a history of cultural systems rather than people -- and as a result has
been subjected to critiques from Aboriginal people that state archaeological
research is dehumanizing. I tend to think they are right, and the focus on
system has produced a very specific type of history which I would hope is
not the only version of the past."
I completely agree. This type of research, albeit very valuable as one way
of looking at things, has the effect of objectifying history to such an
extent that it belongs to no-one. It becomes the history of systems, not of
people. But that obviously relieves you of having to justify who should be
writing the history of given peoples.
Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
"How many versions of the past are there? Two, twenty, two
hundred? And who's version should be recorded as history?"
Well, how many versions of the present can you think of? I assume you would
accept that there are unlimited versions, really, and which one becomes
recorded as "history" depends on who decides what should be regarded as
"history".
And also:
"Who should be responsible for recording the past? What is meant by the
term "recording the past"? How should the past be recorded?
I further wish to clarify that I did NOT say archaeologists should be
responsible for the construction of history; they should, like
historians, RECORD it."
Although I can see the distinction between construct and record, I am not at
all sure that it applies in the way suggested here. Obviously, "history",
i.e. what happened, was "constructed" a long time ago, and, yes,
archaeologists and historians record it, i.e. the traces they can recognize.
But surely, that is just the basis for "constructing" their own image of
history, and it is the image that is presented to the general public, not
the records. The fact that other researchers may use the records and come
up with a different construction some other time, does not alter the fact
that at any given time certain people have a greater authority for
constructing, presenting and having accepted, their version of history.
Mostly they are professionals, like archaeologists and historians, but these
versions are sometimes contested by others in power, such as politicians,
who wish to establish their own versions as the dominant ones.
Basically, though, the question of whose version of history, and thus which
version of history, has the greatest chance of getting accepted and becoming
"official", is a very important one, especially for groups whose history is
regularly told by outsiders, such as indigenous groups without the clout and
authority to establish their own version.
I think it smacks of arrogance to believe that we, as professionals, can
ever write the "true" history of another people, however good our intentions
are.
Best wishes,
Ingegerd
Dr. Ingegerd Holand
140 Castelnau
London SW13 9ET
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|