HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tom Wheaton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 16 Aug 1994 22:00:47 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Here! Here! Anita.  I agree wholeheartedly that <"dirt" archaeologists can
add to the history of a site as effectively as
someone researching the site using historical materials and extant
structures.
Without doing any excavation, it is impossible to see if any other structures
existed before the current one, and if the current structure has been placed
on top of any other site (i.e. prehistoric, or pre-Industrial Revolution).>
 
I am also glad to see that MT does dirt, as well as excellent history,
architectural history, HABS/HAER, and material culture studies, I am sure.
 Personally, I think all are necessary to a complete (more or less)
understanding of a site.  But these other things alone are not archeology no
matter what revisionist stuff is coming from the "new" historical archaeology
so evident at SHA these days.  The "new" historical archaeology is to my mind
too heavy on the historical and too willing to ignore the archaeology.  What
say you Bill A.?
 
Ms Birdsong,  I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but the fact remains that
if one gets out of grad school with a degree in archaeology, but spent field
school recording standing structures and doing library research someone is
going to have to train that person to do archaeology somewhere down the road
unless one decides to do historic preservation or something.  Unfortunately
for those of us desperately seeking qualified (read productive)
archaeological project directors, we will be the ones that have to do what
the university did not do.  This state of affairs is not the fault of the
students.  It is partially the fault of contractors who (because of academic
inferiority complexes) have not made our needs clear to the academy. Last
January's SHA conference hopefully began to rectify this situation.
 
I am preparing a short response to Kerry's inquiry about what we in the
contracting world could possibly be so upset about vis a vis university
training.  It will not be complete, but I hope it hits the high points.  This
sounds like I am preaching again, and I guess I am, but gosh folks, I get so
tired of teaching people how write and conduct a simple little survey
adequately.
 
Tom Wheaton

ATOM RSS1 RSS2