-
6. Negotiating History, Slavery, and the Present: Archaeology at Farmington Plantation
- The University of Alabama Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
6 Negotiating History, Slavery, and the Present Archaeology at Farmington Plantation lori C. StahlGren To change the present requires revising the past. —Edmund Jacobitti, Composing Useful Past: History as Contemporary Politics History is not simply facts written in a book, but rather history is “an unstable pattern of remembered things redesigned and newly colored to suit the convenience of those who make use of it” (Becker 1935:253–254).The settled, static record we are all familiar with from grade school textbooks and lessons is fiction . History is dynamic and highly influenced by the contemporary. This is not to say that historical facts do not exist, but facts take on different meanings to different actors and interpreters. Different versions of events, all with the same facts, can abound. The different interpretations of those facts that we know as history are produced through power and by those with power.The powerful selectively interpret events, emphasizing some facts—not even noticing others—and present versions of how things happened. These versions of history generally emphasize the best interpretation for those in power. Such historical interpretations are powerful and, unless countered with opposing or different viewpoints, will become accepted as the only version. Only one version of history limits scholarship , legitimizes undeserved power, fosters racism, and refuses to recognize the contribution and even the humanity of those whose story is not told. To show another version is to imbue power into those silenced by other versions of history. A single version does not tell the entire story, creating silenced histories . These silenced pasts are the pasts of those without power, including Af- 96 • Lori C. Stahlgren rican Americans, Native Americans, women, immigrants, the poor, children, those in ill health, and many others. A number of different names can be given to unrecorded histories: silences (Trouillot 1995), resistance (Mcguire and Paynter (1991), hidden transcripts (Scott 1990). Historians and anthropologists have long called for research to shed light on silenced histories, as well as calling for practitioners to use their work to foster change. In The Politics of History, Howard Zinn encourages historians to put themselves and their work into history, not to simply stand by and record. He argues that historians should not wait to act after hours but use their writing on behalf of goals in which they believe (Zinn 1970:1). Zinn called for a radical history, for historians to cause change, not to simply record events. While not as radical as Zinn,Trouillot (1995) calls for more authenticity within the practice of history. He argues that we must recognize that history is not made only by the professionals but by everyone everyday. The deconstruction of silences within traditionally accepted histories can foster an activist public committed to truly addressing social issues. Critical understanding of the past is a powerful tool. Such understanding can fight prejudices and ignorance and reveal motivations behind political institutions, laws, even societal norms. While most archaeologists recognize that archaeology is as much about the present as it is about the past, they have begun to frame their work for the needs of the present, calling for an action-based practice for almost two decades (Leone et al. 1987; Potter 1994; Tilley 1989). Beginning with a call of critical self-awareness (Leone et al. 1987), some historical archaeologists are taking a more activist stance in their work. Continuing with the theoretical perspective of critical theory, Parker Potter analyzed the effects of putting archaeological data to use in Annapolis, Maryland (1994). Public Archaeology in Annapolis summarizes archaeologists’ attempts to participate in historic education , interpretation, creation of museums, and involvement of the public with archaeological research (Potter 1994). In his postscript to his work, Potter reflects on an editorial in the Annapolis newspaper entitled “Historic Annapolis Needs Direction from Annapolitians.”Even though the editorial was bemoaning the fact that the majority of the members of the Historic Annapolis Board of Directors lived outside the city, it shows that local participation in the historical process is important. Tilley (1998) argues for the use of archaeological knowledge as sociopolitical action in the present. He suggests elements for a program of action, calling for archaeologists to abandon objectivism as an impossibility, to continue employing a critical approach, to involve the public and public institutions which deal with history, to illuminate multiple pasts (silenced histories), and to foster an understanding of power and ideology (Tilley 1998:318–325). [34.226.141.207] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 17:37 GMT) Negotiating History, Slavery, and...