Yes, indeed Dorothy, we may be well served to include a continuum approach
to the record.  Are we not all interested in material remains of the past
and past human behavior?  Do we have two record(s) of past human behavior?
No? Yes?  Is Maya archaeology *becoming* historic archaeology with the
decipherment of Maya writing (Classic Maya -- A.D 250 to A.D. 900)?  I would
like to get some feedback from this forum and particularly folks interested
in theory and method.
 
Chester Bateman
[log in to unmask]
 
Dorothy writes:
>Re:Archaeology
>I don't know whether historic archaeologists would consider the following
>historic or prehistoric archaeology.  My dissertation focused on
>sixteenth-century (contact period) Native American sites in Georgia.
>Information on these groups is available in Spanish documents.  Is
>this therefore, historic archaeology?
>
>My point is that in some ways the terms historic and prehistoric
>archaeology are just labels.  I agree with Karl Steinen and Irwin
>Rovner that we are ALL archaeologists.  Some have the advantage of
>using documents to help interpret the material culture record
>Dorothy Humpf
>[log in to unmask]
>
 
 Chester P. Bateman                        Email: [log in to unmask]
 PO BOX 1558                                 Fax: (503) 752-4024
 Corvallis, Oregon 97339   USA        CompuServe: 75271,552