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:
Robert Parthesius <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:27:22 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
Working to gather as a historian for many years with archaeologists and
other disciplines, I've experienced the frustration (both sides) of other
disciplines 'digging' in your 'natural sources'.
Of course archaeologist will always protect their sources with the argument
of destruction of the evidence. They even protect their pit against
colleague! I'm glad people are taking care of that heritage, like archivist
are taking care of our historical documents.
But I don't think that is the point: in principal an excavation is all
technique of transforming the information. Like it is also technique to
organise an archive or finding your way in the jungle of documents to
extract an image of the past. You need trained and skilled persons to do
that job and a discipline to develop the best way to do it. In principal
both sources are equally available for all: The historical documents after
the archivist has put them in an archive, the archaeological evidence after
the archaeologist has published(!) the 'excavation' and when the objects
are conserved and put in a collection.
 
For historical-archaeology the question/guideline/hypothesis is important
(that's were this science is about?). How are we looking at the past and
what do we expect from our sources. I agree with Dale E. Floyd that
exhaustive research is needed before the digging starts, but not in the way
he puts it as a complement of the historical reconstruction of the past but
as a joint exercise, part of the historical-archaeological method. Both
disciplines have to bring in there extracted information of the past to
build up a hypothetical reconstruction of their field of research. By
explaining and understanding each others approach of the sources and ideas
about the way the past can be reconstructed I think a level of integrated
research can be obtained.
The question of who is allowed doing what is not longer important as long
as the team is together for the whole project. And truly who wants to have
the monopoly to become dirty or sitting for long hours in dust to
understand the past?
 
Robert Parthesius
Pieter Borstraat 32
1065 AG Amsterdam
Nederland
tel: +31 20 6692405
fax: +31 20 6697715

ATOM RSS1 RSS2