We seem to be developing a lumpers/splitters divergence between a strict
definition and a practice definition.  In the strictest terms,
archaeologists studying the Mayans, Minoans, Egyptians, etc. are
historical archaeologists, since these societies had writing, though for
many years the Maya were definitely on that fuzzy edge, since it was
known that they did have writing, but that writing was not
translateable--Egyptology before Champollion, to the extent it existed
at all and was at all distinct from tomb robbing, would fall into this
same category.  But, in terms of practice, since the 1930s, historical
archaeology, in North America especially, has been the study of
societies using writing, especially those appearing since Europeans
began to come to America 515 years ago.  The rough equivalent is what
the British call "Post Mediaeval Archaeology," which, of course, does
not depend upon adoption of writing, since mediaeval, pre-mediaeval and
post-mediaeval societies in Britain were literate.  Schuyler's linkage
of this practice to the study of colonialism, as an over-arching
experience of this period, is quite important to this practice.  For me,
however, the facts that, even in "literate" societies, most people DO
NOT write, most written records DO NOT survive, and all written records
ARE produced consciously, with at least some bias, conscious or
unconscious, are more important in defining "historical archaeology."
The major advantage we have over historians is that we do not, perhaps,
SHOULD not, give complete authority to written records.  Instead, we
treat them as one line of evidence, which complements, but does not
exceed, other lines of evidence from sites, material culture,
landscapes, regional surveys, oral history, etc.  To the extent that we
treat documents as artifacts, understand and analyze them as such, then
we are practicing as HISTORICAL archaeologists.

D. Babson.


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
David Parkhill
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:23 AM
To: [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