There is some confusion here. Historical Archaeology is, of course, a
part of general archaeology. So, topical interests (e.g. gender, class,
"identity", urbanism, and so on) are of equal interest to our field as
they are to all specializations in general archaeology. Of course we
interact with colleagues from other specializations when discussing or
studying such topics.The definition I put forth is not an "American"
definition. It is a definition based on cultural evolution which is
global. Post-Medieval Archaeology is an integral part of our
specialization, for example, but Etruscan archaeology is not.
The specific issue here is that HISTARCH is a discussion group for
historical archaeologists, not other archaeologies of history. The
syphilis issue is a valid exception but the problem is that there are
hundreds of topics that may interest us as general archaeologists (or
anthropologists or historians) but HISTACH is not the place to discuss
them; indeed, there is usually a much better discussion list available.
I recall the attempt to discuss the so-called
Davidian tunnel under Jerusalem which the moderator, quite correctly,
stopped.
Enough said on this topic for me.
Bob Schuyler
On 12/14/2010 2:18 PM, Candace Ehringer wrote:
> Ditto! It's definitely relevant to historical archaeology of the New World.
> And as someone who only subscribes to this list, I welcome notification of
> interesting findings.
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Meredith Linn<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>
>> I agree, and new insights about the history of syphilis are certainly
>> relevant to the archaeology of the modern world.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Lyle E. Browning"<[log in to unmask]>
>> Sender: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY<[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:02:03
>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY<[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Pompeii skeletons reveal secrets of Roman family life
>>
>> Analytical information coming from any source, especially one as brief as
>> the post in question, is germane to what we do in our "archaeology", however
>> defined. Those who may not subscribe to other mail lists would not be the
>> beneficiaries of information that is entirely on point as to what might be
>> applied to our "archaeology". It's not the ethnic origin of whose skeleton
>> we analyze, nor who pooped in a privy, but what that information can tell us
>> in our own world that transcends the strict constructionist viewpoint.
>> Assuming anyone on this list has ever excavated an historic period cemetery
>> or privy.
>>
>> Sorry, but I think it's relevant and definitely within the realm of an apt
>> notification. Of course, we will spend more time debating this than actually
>> doing something productive, as usual;))
>>
>> Lyle Browning
>>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Robert L. Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are many "archaeologies of history" and many of them (Egyptology,
>>>
>> Maya Archaeology, Classical Archaeology, Chinese Dynastic Archaeology,
>> Medieval Archaeology, etc. etc.) have little if anything to do with each
>> other.
>>
>>> Historical Archaeology is the archaeology of the Modern World (AD [C.E.]
>>>
>> 1400 up through the 20th Century) and this definition and the subject of the
>> discipline are the product of global cultural evolution. The Modern Period
>> is set off qualitatively from the rest of human history and prehistory.
>>
>>> We used the name and title first and consistently, so it belong to us.
>>>
>>> A definition base only on methodology (the present of written sources of
>>>
>> some type) does not say very much.
>>
>>> The message on Pompeii was out of place on HISTARCH although I found it
>>>
>> quite interesting and had not heard of the recent findings.
>>
>>> Bob Schuyler
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2010 12:57 PM, Jack Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Question please: The Romans were a literate people. We have a wealth
>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>> written knowledge from that time period. Ergo, in the "sensu latu"
>>>> interpretation (as opposed to the "sensu stricto" ) they were an
>>>>
>> historic
>>
>>>> people. Is there an arbitrary cutoff to history here that transcends
>>>>
>> time
>>
>>>> and place? I for one found the referred article interesting, although
>>>> given the focus of this forum's interests, I see it as informational and
>>>> not necessarily kicking off a sustained thread of conversation. Hard to
>>>> not use words with Latin roots. Just wondering...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anita
>>>> Cohen-Williams
>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>> To
>>
>>>> M> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent by:
>>>>
>> cc
>>
>>>> HISTORICAL
>>>> ARCHAEOLOGY
>>>>
>> Subject
>>
>>>> <[log in to unmask] Re: Pompeii skeletons reveal
>>>> > secrets of Roman family life
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 12/14/2010 09:00
>>>> AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> HISTORICAL
>>>> ARCHAEOLOGY
>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahem, HISTARCH is for Historical Archaeology, not Classical. Let us
>>>> try to keep on topic, please.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anita Cohen-Williams
>>>> Social Media Marketing and Management
>>>> http://mysearchguru.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/searchguru
>>>> Listowner of Histarch and Sub-Arch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert L. Schuyler
>>> University of Pennsylvania Museum
>>> 3260 South Street
>>> Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
>>>
>>> Tel: (215) 898-6965
>>> Fax: (215) 898-0657
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
3260 South Street
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]
|
