For those of us historical archaeologists over 50, the CRM world is a strange place. I can recall drinking beer from steel cans, which I opened with a churchkey. Now we have to record these as historic artifacts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Marty Pickands<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
What-- you're not going to publish anything else?? I find that hard to imagine.
Marty Pickands
New York State Museum
Marty Pickands
New York State Museum
>>> "Mary C. Beaudry" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 07/20/07 5:51 PM >>>
As am I (50++), but it seems I am not eligible under Criterion D . . .
m.
On 7/20/07, Susan Walter <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> point taken...however most of my collegues are 50+ now...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary C. Beaudry" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
>
>
> Historical, not historic, unless you plan to get the individual
> archaeologist scheduled as an Ancient Monument or listed on the National
> Register.
>
> mcb
>
> On 7/19/07, Susan Walter <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> > I know.
> > And yes, to me they are historic archaeologists.
> > If the archaeologist is able to supplement the knowledge gained by
> > excavation by digging through paper (clay, papyrus, whatever) s/he is a
> > historic archaeologist.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nathanael Heller" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure this definition works too well, at least with "Old World"
> > archaeology. The Egyptians had writing by ca. 3000 B.C., the Sumerians
> > before 2000 B.C., and pretty much all of the Middle East by or before
> 1000
> > B.C. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient China, and even the Ancient
> > Maya
> > would qualify as literate societies, and thereby would be studied by
> > "historic archaeologists."
> >
> > Nathanael Heller
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Susan Walter" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
> >
> >
> > > some of those fuzzy edges...
> > > I think of a contact site as between historic and prehistoric;
> > > if the Indians had learned to write they become historic...
> > > I'd think of your Chinese (etc.) stuff as historic trade...
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
> > >
> > >
> > > Fortunately for you, David, you're still willing to admit your
> > confusion.
> > > Hold onto that grad school naiveté as long as possible -- the real
> world
> > > will beat it out of you soon enough and you, too, will find yourself
> > > making
> > > pronouncements about how to define your field of study. Historical
> > > archaeology is like kivas in Southwestern Pueblo sites -- nobody knows
> > how
> > > to define it but we're all pretty sure we know it when we see it.
> > > Susan Walters' (admirably) short-and-sweet definition brings to my
> mind
> > a
> > > situation on a project I'm working on now. We have sites that are
> > Hispanic
> > > ranchos -- so, clearly historic in time (i.e., after the introduction
> of
> > > Europeans and written records), sites that are prehistoric Puebloan,
> and
> > > sites with components that are prehistoric Puebloan, historic
> > > Euroamerican,
> > > and historic Puebloan. How, oh, how to classify?
> > > Although my co-directors and I euphemistically refer amongst ourselves
> > to
> > > the resulting reports-in-progress as the historic and prehistoric
> > volumes,
> > > we are actually calling the volume that will deal with the Hispanic
> > > components the"Euroamerican volume," while the volumes that will deal
> > with
> > > the Puebloan (and Archaic) components will be the "Native volumes."
> > That,
> > > of
> > > course, will offend some folks who will contend that, by the late 18th
> > > century (our oldest Hispanic component), Hispanics were natives of the
> > > area.
> > > The issue is not resolved by referring to Indians as Native Americans,
> > > since
> > > that term, too, could apply to the local Hispanics. In fact, my family
> > has
> > > lived in northern New Mexico for about 150 years, so I (sometimes
> > hautily)
> > > consider myself a native. But, we had to make a call, and we decided
> to
> > > group the components of Euroamerican origin(s), even though many of
> the
> > > artifacts were made by Indians, and to group the components of Indian
> > > origin(s), even though at least one will be "historic" in age.
> > > Nothing, of course, prevents us from comparing assemblages across
> > presumed
> > > ethnic and temporal boundaries.
> > > We have stopped referring to "historic" artifacts and "historic
> artifact
> > > analysis" and gone to "Euroamerican artifacts" and "Euroamerican
> > artifact
> > > analysis," admitting up front that items like Chinese porcelain and
> > > Haitian
> > > Phoenix buttons are not technically Euroamerican artifacts.
> > > That's our happy little story, and we're sticking with it.
> > > Has your confusion now given you a headache? If not, then I haven't
> done
> > > my
> > > job.
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
> > > Project Director
> > > Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
> > > mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
> > > physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Suite B-100, Santa Fe, New
> Mexico 87501
> > > tel: 505.827.6387 fax: 505.827.3904
> > > e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > > "It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years
> > > ime." --Terry Pratchett
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of David Parkhill
> > > Sent: Wed 7/18/2007 9:22 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Hysterical Archaeology
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am trying my best to understand all of the evaluations concerning
> the
> > > terms "Historical Archaeology", "History"and "Archaeology". The more I
> > > read, (it is all very good!) the more confused I become.
> > >
> > > It seems to me some folks are trying to defend their "Sacred
> Positions",
> > > which I find is usual among intellectuals, while others are trying to
> > just
> > > confuse the issue. Being a neophyte in this area of study I keep
> asking,
> > > Huh? So if I may be so bold as to admit, "I don't know!" Then "What
> the
> > > heck is Historical Archaeology ?"
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I am really impressed with the quality and
> > knowledge
> > > of all of you and your willingness to share and support each other.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > This inbound email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
> > > System.
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for
> > the
> > > sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> > > privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> > > distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New
> > > Mexico
> > > Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended
> recipient,
> > > please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. --
> > This
> > > email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.
> >
>
|
