At 10:31 AM 4/27/2005, Cathy Spude wrote:

>As for historians becoming archeologists, I say I'm all for it! We need
>diversity, and a great deal of it. I say cultural geographers, art
>historians, sociologists, and a whole slew of other social scientists
>should join the lot. Who says we should limit ourselves to those who have
>degrees in Anthropology? As long as you have the practical experience in
>archeological technique and methods, I maintain you can bring a badly
>needed perspective ...

I could not agree more.  I would also add "physical scientists" (I teach in
an earth science department as well as a social science one).  While the
connection between the "professionalization" of archaeology and its
assignment to the academic typology of anthropology departments in the
United States (though this is not even consistent in the USA) and some
other countries can not be denied, there should be no need to remind
anybody that archaeology is its own unique field of study, and one which
has historically had more doors open to other fields and intellectual
traditions than most of the social sciences.  Moreover, worldwide, there
are archaeologists using a very wide variety of approaches ranging from the
purely archaeological (if you will allow that particular blasphemy to slip
by), to the classical, to the geographic/landscape approach - just to
mention a few.  Bsides all that, it's not the particular piece of paper you
hang on your wall, but rather, what you do with the knowledge it is
supposed to reflect (or, at least, that's how it should be).
Cheers,

Matt Tomaso
Center for Archaeological Studies
Montclair State University

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/archaeology/