аЯрЁБс>ўџ -ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFWњuЫ€1Tableџџџџ-џWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ2SummaryInformation(џџџџœ§џџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџ 'џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ)ўџџџ !"#$%&(8џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ9:?џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ@Aџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџўџџџ ўџџџ !"#$%&'()*+,K./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLўџџџMўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ0CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџX0TableџџџџџџџџџџџџѓџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFFuЫ.€1Tableџџџџ-џWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ14SummaryInformation(џџџџœџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ,§џџџўџџџ <џџџџ*)џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ+ўџџџўџџџўџџџ/ўџџџ234567;џџџџџџџџџџџџ=>BџџџџџџџџџџџџCDEFG0џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ i(@ёџ(NormalCJmH <A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraph Fonto(џџџџ!џџ z™!џџ z™!џџ z™ џџ z™|;аoпѕq• qœ€€˜0€€š0€€b/ccџџUnknown Harold FagleyLSшяму kr‰ХЮ–ЅРДД€4ŸШy Harold FagleyџџResponse paper Harold Fagley Harold Fagleyor culture; they were using the same equipment as the other residents of the house. It is interesting that a relative wealth of information can be found in the documentary record of the period; the first part of Bankoff and Winter’s article deals with information about the Van Cortlandt slaves gleaned from the wills of the plantation’s owners. Bankoff and Winter’s musings as to the value of documentation with regard to slavery are well taken: despite its biases towards the elite authors, without documentary evidence, archaeology would have, at least in this case, been able to discover little about the lives of the slaves (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 314). Shepherd approaches the issue of archaeology and the oppressed from a very different angle. His article deals with the issue of a mass grave discovered in Cape Town. In this case, the archaeological data was there, but as in the case of the Bronx plantation, an alternative to archaeology emerged, this time to the chagrin of the archaeological team: historical tradition. Community outcry made it impossible for a time for archaeologists to excavate the Prestwich Street site, and threw up substantial roadblocks even after work resumed (Shepherd 2007, 102). Claims that archaeological excavations are unwanted, even amounting to desecration, have always been a factor in any project. However, the anti-archaeology sentiment was especially entrenched in the case of the Prestwich Street burial because generations of apartheid had effectively left a community without history or ties to a location or heritage. Removal of the bones from the gravesite, many community members felt, would be to remove the last link between those ancestors and any physical location that was important to them (Shepherd 2008, 104). Many protesters came forward with stories of an oral tradition that had always held the Prestwich site as “haunted ground”, and were disgusted that these traditions had not been consulted before the city planners initiated the excavation (Shepherd 2008, 102). Whether knowledge of the burial ground would have halted the development before it began is to my mind doubtful, but the be forewarned of the significance of the site would have benefited everyone, and preparation could have led to a solution to the conflict that might’ve been more appreciated by all sides. Shepherd’s article presents, in a way, culture, heritage, and community history as, if not alternatives, important considerations to archaeology, just as written history became a valuable consideration in the Van Cortlandt project. Archaeology, despite recent efforts to solidify the field’s recent image as a hard science, is neither exact nor all-encompassing, and should not be presented as such to any audience. Whether it be in the form of Shepherd’s experience in Cape Town, and his conclusion that archaeology must acknowledge “the validity of rival claims to the sanctity and significance of the remains of the dead” (Shepherd 2008, 112), or the Bronx plantation excavation that would have been lost in their search for slave histories without the corroborating data of “undemocratic” documentary sources, ЅРДД€4ŸШџџResponse paper Harold Fagle i(@ёџ(NormalCJmH <A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraph Fontj(џџџџ!џџ z™!џџ z™!џџ z™ џџ z™|;аjпџl• lœ€€˜0€€š0€€60ccџџUnknown Harold FagleyLSшяму kr‰ХЮ–. 5 м х е м  \ c x  `ižЇOXahiilX^єњпщ•›с ч Œœ7l::::::џџ Harold Fagley.Home:Users:haroldfagley:Desktop:Response paperџ@€iitiІiэКљЌb…‹НЯмэИТУNij@ @A(Ad(Ap(A”(A,A$,A>,A`,Aі-A .A .A0@Ф8@GTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial3Times 1ˆаhзЪъ&фвъFV<_< )!ўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp„Œ”œ ЄЌДМ Ф п' Macromediap) Ÿ$ Response paper Titleўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0lˆ. 5 м х е м  \ c x  `ižЇOXamnnqX^єњпщ•›с ч Œœ7q::::::џџ Harold Fagley.Home:Users:haroldfagley:Desktop:Response paperџ@€nntiІnэКљ b…‹НЯмэИТУno@ @A(Ad(Ap(A”(A,A$,A>,A`,Aі-A .A .@Ф8@GTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial3Times 1ˆаhзЪъ&увъFT;_< )!ЅРДД€4ŸШџџResponse paper Harold Fagley Harold Fagley i(@ёџ(NormalCJmH <A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraph Fontf(џџџџ!џџ z™!џџ z™!џџ z™ џџ z™x7Ьfпš#дhџР!ы^џР!г0KџР!‡{џР!щбE#д‘ h˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€&2ccџџUnknown Harold FagleyHOфыипўgn…ŒСЪ ’™* 1 и с б и   X _ t { \ešЃKT hTZ№ілх‘—н у ˆ˜h::::::џџ Harold Fagley.Home:Users:haroldfagley:Desktop:Response paperџ@€~~tiІ//~~КљИ^‡™ЙЫищДОПJef120. @1(1d(1p(1”(1,1$,1>,1`,1і-1 .1 .100Ф8@GTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial3Times qˆаhзЪъ&фвъFW<_< )! Fonto(џџџџ!џџ z™!џџ z™!џџ z™ џџ z™|;аoпѕq• qœ€€˜0€€š0€€b/ccџџUnknown Harold FagleyLSшяму kr‰ХЮ–. 5 м х е м  \ c x  `ižЇOXamnnqX^єњпщ•›с ч Œœ7q::::::џџ Harold Fagley.Home:Users:haroldfagley:Desktop:Response paperџ@€nntiІnэКљ b…‹НЯмэИТУno@ @A(Ad(Ap(A”(A,A$,A>,A`,Aі-A .A .@Ф8@GЈДЬиш   ( 4 @LT\d'Response paperoespHarold FagleyoaroNormalFHarold Fagleyo86oMicrosoft Word 10.0@hФa@"+‚XtЫ@p}#uЫ_< i(@ёџ(NormalCJmH <A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraphe and a say in the project.ьЅС@ єПcjbjb‹ю‹ю‹ю‹ю‹ю2сŒсŒjџџџџџџl––––––\\\\ h {ъВВВВВВВВœžžžžžž,e …zЪБ–ВВВВВЪ––ВВ€2В–В–ВœЊ,ж,––––Вœ€œ––œt цЅьШF\ФXœœ{{œџџœУхWEEK 7 READING RESPONSE Ben Jones What stood out to me most in this week’s readings was the idea of whether or not archaeology alone is equipped to deal with technically demanding and socially powerful issues like the culture and history of the oppressed. To limit the scope of this response, I will focus on the articles of Bankoff and Winter, and Shepherd, which both come at the issue in ways I found intriguing. While the Brown University Steering Committee Report was a useful and interesting overview of the history of the issue of slavery in New England, and how it related to Brown University in particular, the other two articles refer to the field or archaeology more directly, and so it with them that I will spend my time. Bankoff and Winter, in their study of the Van Cortlandt Plantation, dealt largely with the technical usefulness of archaeology in informing us of the histories of slaves, whereas Shepherd discusses an example of the cultural and ethical repercussions of archaeological action. Though these approaches are in many ways dissimilar, they overlap insomuch as they both refer to the limitations and challenges facing archaeology when dealing with issues regarding slaves and other oppressed peoples. In Bankoff and Winter’s study of the Van Cortlandt Plantation in the Bronx, using archaeological methods to uncover evidence of the plantation’s slave population proved challenging. Despite 12 weeks of excavation by Brooklyn College’s field school, the writers state that “the enslaved population that is known to have inhabited the plantation for 75 years is invisible in the archaeological record” (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 306). Bankoff and Winter state a compelling reasons why this absence is not extraordinary: often the material culture of the masters is adopted by or imposed on the slave population. We have documentary evidence of this phenomenon in many records, including lists of New England slaves’ names (including those at the Van Cortlandt Plantation) which have been conspicuously Europeanized (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 306). One telling archaeological find however, came in the form of a cache of seemingly out-of-date kitchenware, which Bankoff and Winter, citing similar finds at other sites, suggest is evidence that slaves were using the hand-me-down dining equipment of their masters (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 312). Interestingly, this find reinforces the previously stated difficulty in using archaeology to study slave populations: the slaves were not using plateware of their own construction 'c)@*b/60ќњ55>*Times New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial3Times 1ˆаhзЪъ&увъFT;_< )!ЅРДД€24ŸШџџResponse paper Harold Fagley Harold FagleyDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ0CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџX0Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ<џџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџўџџџ ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLџџџџMўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp„Œ”œ ЄЌДМ Ф п' Macromediap) Ÿ$ Response paper Titleўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0lˆЈДЬиш   ( 4 @LT\d'Response paperoespHarold FagleyoaroNormalFHarold Fagleyo87oMicrosoft Word 10.0@hФa@"+‚XtЫ@p}#uЫ_< i(@ёџ(NormalCJmH <A@ђџЁ<Default ParagraphCRITICAL RESPONSE 5ьЅС@ єПcjbjb‹ю‹ю‹ю‹ю‹ю‹ю4сŒсŒfџџџџџџlѓ–‰‰‰‰‰ѕDЋ Ћ Ћ Ћ З 9 И ъ        Э Я Я Я Я Я Я ,Ђ Тzћ Н‰     ћ M ‰‰  Я 2M M M  њ‰ ‰ Э M ,Щ,‰‰‰‰ Э M €M Э ‰‰Э У ќЅьШ9 rЋ ћ RЭ Э И И Э <M <Э M УхWEEK 7 READING RESPONSE Ben Jones What stood out to me most in this week’s readings was the idea of whether or not archaeology alone is equipped to deal with technically demanding and socially powerful issues like the culture and history of the oppressed. To limit the scope of this response, I will focus on the articles of Bankoff and Winter, and Shepherd, which both come at the issue in ways I found intriguing. While the Brown University Steering Committee Report was a useful and interesting overview of the history of the issue of slavery in New England, and how it related to Brown University in particular, the other two articles refer to the field or archaeology more directly, and so it with them that I will spend my time. Bankoff and Winter, in their study of the Van Cortlandt Plantation, dealt largely with the technical usefulness of archaeology in informing us of the histories of slaves, whereas Shepherd discusses an example of the cultural and ethical repercussions of archaeological action. Though these approaches are in many ways dissimilar, they overlap insomuch as they both refer to the limitations and challenges facing archaeology when dealing with issues regarding slaves and other oppressed peoples. In Bankoff and Winter’s study of the Van Cortlandt Plantation in the Bronx, using archaeological methods to uncover evidence of the plantation’s slave population proved challenging. Despite 12 weeks of excavation by Brooklyn College’s field school, the writers state that “the enslaved population that is known to have inhabited the plantation for 75 years is invisible in the archaeological record” (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 306). Bankoff and Winter state a compelling reasons why this absence is not extraordinary: often the material culture of the masters is adopted by or imposed on the slave population. We have documentary evidence of this phenomenon in many records, including lists of New England slaves’ names (including those at the Van Cortlandt Plantation) which have been conspicuously Europea'и •cњњњњњdр•cўўАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %Аarchaeology must not simply present facts to its audience, it must accept something back. Whether that be interpretation, nized (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 306). One telling archaeological find however, came in the form of a cache of seemingly out-of-date kitchenware, which Bankoff and Winter, citing similar finds at other sites, suggest is evidence that slaves were using the hand-me-down dining equipment of their masters (Bankoff & Winter 2005, 312). Interestingly, this find reinforces the previously stated difficulty in using archaeology to study slave populations: the slaves were not using plateware of their own construction 'c)@*b/60&2ќњќ55>*'и •cњњњњњdрWhether that be interpretation, Whether that means listening to interpretation, tradition, or allowing incursions from other fields depends on the case. However, especially in scenarios where the interests involved are as historically tangled and emotionally charged as slavery and oppression, archaeology must avoid the temptation to be the sole expert; it must let its various audiences, as much as possible, feel they have a stake and a say in the presentation.•cўўАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %Аarchaeology must not simply present facts to its audience, it must accept something back. Whether that be interpretation, Whether that be interpretation, Whether that means listening to interpretation, tradition, or allowing incursions from other fields depends on the case. However, especially in scenarios where the interests involved are as historically tangled and emotionally charged as slavery and oppression, archaeology must avoid the temptation to be the sole expert; it must let its various audiences, as much as possible, feel they have a stake and a say in the presentation.e and a say in the project.