Extend Your Learning
Historical Interpretations
Although archeologists have learned a lot about the Mississippian culture of Moundville from their excavation of the site, their current conclusions about Moundville are provisional and based on partial excavation. In fact, a large percentage of the Moundville settlement has yet to be unearthed. What does this mean in terms of our understanding of the Moundville culture? How do we know what we know?
Dr. Jim Knight, University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa, reflects on the excavation of the Moundville site:
"We archeologists have excavated only 14% of the Moundville site and have come up with historical claims about it. But, we don't pretend that is the final answer. In fact, what we know now is different from what I would have told you 15 years ago because we've learned some more. Now we may have it, I think, roughly right, but that doesn't mean that the story couldn't change the next time we do an excavation. Future excavation may clarify some points and we'll probably see that we were wrong about one or more issues and go back and change our interpretation. And that's the way it works. It takes a lot of archaeology to write just one page of history. We very gradually come to these conclusions but we don't go to our grave to defend them. They're negotiable and get revised in the context of future work."
Present Your Historical Interpretation
History has been referred to as a "wounded discipline" in the sense that access to the full and complete information about the past is never available. All that we have is what was left behind, and this is always fragmentary to some degree. What does this mean to you in the context of your own learning about history, in your teaching of history, and your consideration of the question, "How do we know what we know?" Reflect on your answer, then discuss your conclusions with your colleagues or record them in your journal. Use the following questions to guide your thinking.
- Do you think the history of Moundville will ever be finished and official? How might the facts and interpretations change? What facts or interpretations appear to be potentially problematic?
- Do you think that Dr. Knight's points about history, revision, and negotiation apply to the study of history beyond archeological settings like Moundville? Are there examples in more recent history using more traditional documents in which interpretations have changed based on new discoveries or insights?
- Students often view textbooks and other historical texts as "official and final." How might you help students understand this process of revision and negotiation in history?