Jay writes:
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 decide a priori who should write history (based in 
institutional affiliation, or nation of origin, or how about class . . .
or 
maybe even race?) then we begin limiting the histories based on
everything 
other than their potential truth value.  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.  Then we can begin the task of deciding which 
history is right.

Gerry:  In order to represent history fairly we must have written
accounts from the 4.6 billion folks living today in the world.  Only
then would it be politcally correct. For me, such an egalitarian spread
would be too laborious to comprehend.  I'd much prefer selecting a
representive or several to devote his/her career to recording and
interpreting the past.  Let them select the thesis and the antithesis. 
And let them debate the synthesis.      

Jay:  Allowing multiple voices serves another purpose as well -- it
greatly 
broadens our scope of inquiry into the past.  This isn't just a PC 
statement, I think we need multiple interests to understand the many 
different facets of history.  For example, engendered approaches did not 
come about because an ecological archaeologist suddenly found 'women' in
the 
archaeological record, but because gender became a topic of interest for 
(feminist) archaeologists.  It was the inclusion of these interests that
has 
lead to our current knowledge on women's roles in past societies.  How
many 
other interesting questions are rendered inadmissible by a priori checks
on 
who gets to write history?

Gerry:  I don't think "gender" studies began with feminist
archaeologists.  I think gender studies have always been in focus in
archaeology and only recently did they become the "high profile" area of
which grants were awarded.  A decade ago, feminism was big; I think some
of the wind has been removed from the sails today in 1999.

Jay:  Barring more traditional academic concerns over race, nationalism
and 
gender, class and 'rural - urban' based dichotomies can be used to
restrict 
specific interest and exclude particular histories. 

Gerry:  Of course they can.  But it's the job of the archaeologist to
present not ONLY what is in his eyes _The Truth_, but to also present
what is the view of the mainstream of academe.  Then if a new view
enters the discipline, it is argued and debated until the mainstream
changes course.

 
Jay:   This is why I would 
take issue with your reference to an illiterate cousin (and not to the 
arrogant academic). 

Gerry:  Are you saying that my illiterate cousin has as much book
learning as does an arrogant academic?  HOW CAN HE if he can't read? 
Does he get his info from other sources such as the street corner and
the telly?

Jay:   For financial reasons, I suspect, archaeology remains 
the indulgence of a typically wealthy, upper class and urban minority. 

Gerry:  Typically.  But not always so.

 Jay:  This 
makes it rather easy to discount the legitimacy of both 'rural' and/or 
'white trash' interpretations: because it comes from someone who is not
part 
of the educated urban elite [A friend of mine recently suggested that
having 
the proper accent is vitally important for graduate work in the U.K]. 
To my 
mind, even the 'illiterate' should have their say and get a chance for
their 
histories to be seriously considered.

Gerry:  I wish you good luck in promoting your "illiterate" education. 
And what type of accent does a person need to possess to teach in your
system?  Deez, dems, and doze?
Not only would I not wish to teach in your system, I also would not wish
to read the books published by your "illiterate" histographers.   

Merry Christmas,

Gerry:  Yes. Happy holidays and good cheer for the new year.  PS: If
you're so politically correct, why did you wish me Merry Christmas?  Who
owns that holiday anyway?  
G


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%