Howdy, Paul! I certainly do NOT mean to denigrate the documentary
evidence. Historical archaeology would be much more difficult without it
(insert large grin here). I agree that my trust in the
artifact/feature/site level data is to a fair degree becauser I am both
more familiar and comforable with it. I also agree that everyone in our
field can think of endless cases of misinterpreted data. The "hard
sciences" have consistently had to deal with the problem of data
mis-interpetation as well as the social scientists.
I also agree with the point (I believe it was Ron May's) historical
documentation summaries and reports, seldom have what I need to help answer
the questions I am asking. I usually have to go back to the original or
baseline data (wills, letters, diaries, etc.). The same is often true for
me in archaeological reports where I have to go back and actually look at
the artifacts for myself. Historians have the problems as archaeologist in
that their publications simply can not reproduce every single lilttle bit
of their documentation. We can not illustrate every artifact, publish
every profile, conduct every test known to science and so on and put them
into our reports.
The nature of scientific inquiry is that we almost always have to go back
to the original sources of information ourselves. The more narrow and
particular the nature of our inquiry, the more dependent we will be on
original sources.
I have never learned a danged thing from those that already agree with me.
The folks that I have always been indebted to are the ones that diasagree
with me. Besides, problems of interpretation are a great reason to get
together and hoist a few at the SHAs. Of course, when it gets down to
"Alien Landing Pads", a new topic may be in order.
Smoke.
Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA
Ozark-St. Francis National Forests
605 West Main Street
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
(479) 968-2354 Ext. 233
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
paul courtney
<paul.courtney2@NT To: [log in to unmask]
LWORLD.COM> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]>
03/15/2004 11:40
AM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
I trust archaeological data a LOT more than many classes of
> historical data. SMOKE that is probably because you are dealing with the
archaeological data yourself and are more expert in it. I can think of
endless cases of misinterpreted arcaheological data, - one of the commonest
is not allowing for destruction of evidence or people inventing kilns from
1
sherd of distorted pot. The commonest misuse of historical data is probably
not to read and understand documents in their entirity but to pull
sentences
out of context. I can think of a few archaeologists who have misread
documents. One amateur archaeologist wrote an entire book chapter based on
a misreading of street name and a famous British archaeologist's
misreading
of a medieval latin document had me searching for days for a windmill
rebuilt with elm trees- in fact its sails had beene repaired with so many
ells of cloth. Of course professional historians get it wrong also- thank
goodness or it all have been said a hundred years ago. I won't bore you
with
a long list of archaeological excvations whose interpretation would be
radically different had I not had inspired thoughts based on the
documentary
evidence. However, in my experience of several decades working on both
arcahaeology and documents- the score is even on misinterpretation.
paul courtney
historical archaeologist and/or archaeological historian
Leicester UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Pfeiffer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am
> I also finish graduate school over 20 years ago. My Major Professor
(Rick
> Sprague) encouraged all of the grad student considering Historical
> Archaeology to take history courses, particularly "Method and Theory in
> History". The history department at the Univ. of Odaho back then
welcomed
> all students interested in the subject.
>
> Take a course like that and you will see how SLANTED the historical
record
> can be! I trust archaeological data a LOT more than many classes of
> historical data.
>
> Smoke
>
>
> Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA
> Ozark-St. Francis National Forests
> 605 West Main Street
> Russellville, Arkansas 72801
> (479) 968-2354 Ext. 233
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
>
>
>
>
> Carl Barna
> <[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> gov> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: Just the
facts, ma'am
> HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
> <[log in to unmask]
> u>
>
>
> 03/12/2004 02:36
> PM
> Please respond
> to HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HI --
>
> Well, I am glad to hear that we may be seeing a sea change in the
training
> of HAs. I think its overdue, but still encouraging.
>
> But on the darker sider, I continue to remain shocked and dismayed at how
> many newly crowned PhDs I meet at SHA meetings who tell me, upon my
> questioning them, that they'd had no training in or exposure to history
at
> the college level - nor was it required in their HA program - and yet
they
> call themselves Historical Archaeologists.
>
> One small step and hurrah for personal initiative!
>
> Carl Barna
> Regional Historian
> BLM Colorado State Office
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was trained in the traditional anthropology route common in the US. As
I
> was specializing in historical archaeology, I assumed that I would be
> taking courses in history and geography. Not only did I not meet with
any
> resistance from my faculty committee, they were laboring under the same
> expectations as I, so I found courses from these disciplines readily
became
> a part of my program. Also, the faculty in history and geography in
whose
> classes I enrolled, were uniformly welcoming, even though I was not in
> their own graduate program. Now I finished graduate coursework just over
> 20 years ago, so maybe the world of graduate studies has changed.
>
> Tom Langhorne
>
>
>
> >To respond to Carl's comment: While the archaeology departments may not
> >list history classes in their catalogs, it's my experience from talking
to
> >the new generation of historical archaeologists that most of us who have
> >chosen to get our degree in an archaeology department that do not
> specialize
> >in historical archaeology have taken all of their electives and
additional
> >classes in history. I don't think the problem is the education that the
> >students are getting. I think it's academia. I know many historians
who
> >have to battle their professors to take archaeology classes and
although,
> as
> >I said above, many of us historical archaeologists have a lot of
training
> in
> >history, it is by our own initiative and sometimes tenacity that this is
> so.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl
> >Barna
> >Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:49 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am
> >
> >Adrain --
> >
> >A perfect example of why students in Historical Archaeology need to be
> also
> >trained in History, not currently the situation in US anthro-oriented
grad
> >school HA programs.
> >
> >Carl Barna
> >Regional Historian
> >BLM Colorado State Office
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > praetzellis
> > <[log in to unmask] To:
[log in to unmask]
> > ET> cc:
> > SCHAEOLOGY <HIOGY Subject: Just the
facts,
> >ma'am
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"If you provide a research design that. explains why archaeological data
> >are better than archival or historic sources for studying these
questions,
> >the THC will support it."
> >
> >Barile continues.
> >
> >".this statement re-emphasized the tendency to separate archaeology from
> >the cohesive study of all historic cultural resources, including
> >architecture, archival research, and oral history."
> >
> >
> >Adrian Praetzellis
> >Sonoma State University
>
> W. Thomas Langhorne, Jr., Ph.D. [log in to unmask]
> Pre-Health Professions Advisor (phone) 607-777-6305
> Adjunct Assistant Professor-Anthropology (fax) 607-777-2721
> Binghamton University
> P.O. Box 6000
> Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
> http://harpur-advising.binghamton.edu/prehealth
>
> This message and any attachments may contain information that is
protected
> by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole
use
> of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of
> this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.
If
> you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the
> sender by e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail.
|
