Paul makes an excellent and often overlooked point.
IMHO, true expertise in anything comes only from years of deep study. I
have studied in my particular fields of historical interest for decades,
and I do not consider my self an expert on any of them. There is too much
to know, and too little time.
So, I find it irritating, presumptuous and obnoxious to the Xtreme when
some archs tell me that they are equally competent to work on an PIII site
one day, and an a 1870s mining complex the next. Hogwash.
If all this implies is that they can trowel aside dirt on one type of site
as well as on another, or put buttons or lithic flakes into plastic bags on
one site as well as another, and then put the results into a table that's
sometimes called "a report," that's one thing. One would hope, however,
that there is more to archaeology than just this superficial approach. I
don't buy the argument that one can be equally competent, or provide the
kind of deep insight and knowledge that the study of such diverse sites
warrant or deserve, with such a lack of real depth of learning and
interpretive understanding about any of them. I don't know anyone who's
brain is big enough to do that.
Years ago, I served on the SHA curriculum committee, or at least it was
called that back then. Based on my experience in the field, I made the
suggestion that for the typical 30-credit hour MA degree, the student
should have at least 6-9 credit hours in the time period or thematic area
they hoped to work in. Well, you can just imagine how that went over!
MI Tech seems to take this approach, and there may be others. But, after
having studied in both disciplines, I consider a competent Hist Arch to be
someone well trained in the approaches and techniques of both History and
Archaeology. I can't see how it can be otherwise and do justice to the
resource. From what I've seen, few Hist Archs can show that competency.
Cheerio!
Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO
"paul.courtney2"
<paul.courtney2@N
TLWORLD.COM> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
HISTORICAL cc
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask] Subject
> oral history etc
11/22/2005 10:18
AM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
Having trained and worked as both an archaeologist and historian I have
to agree with Lynda that faults are on both sides. So a pox on both
your houses. In my book the most annoying are archaeologists who think
they can understand historical sources without years gaining the
relevant background knowledge of palaeography, law, historiography etc
of the period involved. The average CRM phase 1 historical contribution
in the UK is clearly written by people whose historical knowedge is
based on watching TV cartoons. Not surprising as our schools only treach
20th century history these days ofen repeating the same stuff at
different ages- sorry for this very British gripe. Historians in general
just prefer to ignore the existence of archaeology and archaeologists
even in fields like ceramic history where archaeologists are half a
century ahead. I remember a debate on some website on medieval housing
where the only source that seemed to count for most participants was the
last book by an American academic historian covering the subject in 2
pages- itself a review of British archaeological work but
unfortunately it was written just at the point as the existing paradigm
was demolished, thrown in the dustbin and rethought.
paul courtney
leicester
UK
|
