Gerry here: I have ONE simple question -- who should control our
history? Folks "come together" when life becomes nasty, brutish and
short to form a "state". To think of each one of us writing his/her own
history does sound a bit preposterous. Politically correct maybe, but
preposterous nevertheless.
Gerry
Robert Jeske wrote:
>
> I would not argue with Jay's statements very much (although in the US,
> many archaeologists are rural born and raised, and many of us have
> blue-collar origins).
> I strongly agree that it is important to listen to multiple points of
> view, and that it is not important *who* writes. But that does not mean
> that ALL points of view should be given _a priori_ equal weight when you
> evaluate arguments. Just because someone has the physical and mental
> ability to think up a story to write about the past does not mean that
> they have any knowledge about the past.
>
> When we are told (by some) that archaeologists should not have a
> 'priveleged' position when we write about the past, we negate the entire
> notion of learning. The fact that one person or ethnic group (aka
> voice) has an oral tradition or idea about the past does not mean that
> oral tradition or idea should take equal position in scholarly debates
> about the past.
>
> How, for example, does an archaeologist take into account equally,
> mutually exclusive Native American creation myth(s), Genesis, and the
> Mormon tradition about mound building, as well as the physical remains
> of the archaeological record? Not to mention the dozens of other
> "voices" arguing for Norse, Welsh, and Irish origins for the burial
> mounds?
> The fact is, we can't. We can sift through them to see which ones fit
> with the physical evidence, but then we are committing the sin of
> priveleging the empirical record (and our archaeological experience)
> over their oral tradition.
>
> So while we must keep open ears and open minds, we must privelege the
> empirical record and ourselves (meaning people who systematically engage
> in creating knowledge about the past) if we are ever going to evaluate
> multiple hypotheses (stories, if you'd like) about the past. And if
> we're not going to evaluate them, then there is no reason to pursue the
> issue.
> Bob Jeske
>
> Jay Cunningham wrote:>
> > I don't want to belabour the point, but I still don't think the question
> > should be about WHO does the history; it should be concerned with its
> > QUALITY.....If we follow Wylie's suggestion, it
> > is the combination of these different voices (to use the pomo term) that
> > neutralizes underdetermination and gives us a degree of objectivity in
> > archaeological research. But for this to take place, we need to hear from
> > these different voices.....Allowing multiple voices serves another purpose as well -- it greatly
> > broadens our scope of inquiry into the past.
> --
> "The greatest pleasure of a dog is that you may make a fool of yourself
> with him, and not only will he not scold you, but he will make a fool of
> himself too." --Samuel Butler
>
> Robert J. Jeske, Ph.D.
> Department of Anthropology
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> Milwaukee, WI 53211
> 414-229-2887 (Office)
> 414-229-2424 (Lab)
> 414-229-5946 (Region 9)
> 414-229-5848 (Fax)
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.uwm.edu/wcb.uwm/schools/532/156/rjeske/rjeske.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|