Jay Cunningham: The point I'm trying to make is that archaeologist's
alone are not
responsible for the construction of history. There are many different
histories, official and unofficial. Even our different 'official'
disciplines tend to write slightly different versions of the past,
emphasizing those elements they see relevant. 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.
Gerry: How many versions of the past are there? Two, twenty, two
hundred? And who's version should be recorded as history? Should this
history be "official" or is unofficial also accepted? Should a
committee vote on what the history of a particular group should be? 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. And like the scholars that they are (or that
they should be) it's the debate that puts the history in perspective.
And over time as the paradigm changes, then so should the interpretation
of the history.
So many questions and too little time. Any further thoughts from
anyone?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|