Hi Gerry,
Sorry for taking so long in responding -- the Christmas rush is now in full
swing.
>Anyhow, about the quality of history -- show me good archaeology done >by
>avocational groups. Perhaps you might like to list a few groups >and then
>I'll be glad to comment. As far as good or bad archaeology >and a person's
>affiliation you are correct. There are some horrible
>archaeological stuff being backed by our major instiutions but there >is
>also some very good archaeological stuff. The mark of a great
>institution is one that supports both.
>
>Gerry
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.
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?
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. This is why I would
take issue with your reference to an illiterate cousin (and not to the
arrogant academic). For financial reasons, I suspect, archaeology remains
the indulgence of a typically wealthy, upper class and urban minority. 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.
Merry Christmas,
Jay
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|