<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Poor scholarship!
Review: Starbuck's interpretation of archaeological data at Canterbury Shaker Village is self-serving -- simplistic at best, and in fact, nothing new. His book is an effort to put a sensationalist spin on the archaeological evidence which he interprets as indicating that the Shakers were more "worldly" and materialistic than popularly thought. He all but states that the Shakers were a community of hypocrites. In fact, the Shakers were not perfect, but the story is much more complex than Starbuck presents. No one ever denied that the Shakers were involved in dynamic commercial relations with the World - they were not self-sufficient and were not adverse to applying new technology to make their work more efficient. They were also, however, tempered by a very strong faith that called for moderation. They were human and balanced their lives as best they could. But Starbuck jumps to immediate conclusions. In his self-centered analysis, he very briefly mentions that other theories have been brought forth to explain the archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, he immediately passes these off as "sentimental." To offer one of a number of examples, he blatantly fails to take into account that the Shakers, a celibate order, sustained their population by conversion, and, as a communal group, those entering the Shaker life brought all their worldly goods with them. In the spirit of economy and thrift, what else could be expected than that the Shakers would then put those goods to use and throw them away when they were through with them? They certainly would not have carted off and secretly buried the refuse that would make them appear more worldly to future archaeologists! He would do well to consider the archaeological evidence in light of extensive historical documentation and other theories than his own.
<< 1 >>
| 
