Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:45:16 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Robert L Schuyler wrote:
>
> What the he-- is a "pom"? Is it: "post medievalists" or is it a dirty
> Australian word for Brits?
The latter.
> I always consider the nomenclature in England
Do you _mean_ England, or do you mean Great Britain, or perhaps the
United Kingdom.... After all, we do so need to make sure that our
terminology
is painfully accurate.
> - Post-Medieval Archaeology
> and Industrial Archaeology (both as subfields of Historical Archaeology)
> - to be logical and fine with Post-Medeival Archaeology covering ca. the
> Tudor Dynasty to industrailization.
With the possible problem that "Industrial archaeology" is typically the
study of industry and related areas - mostly (though admittedly by no
means exclusively) urban ones - and is very building oriented.
Conceptually
the term "Industrial archaeology" as used in this country has virtually
nothing to do with the archaeology of everyday life in non-industrial
settings,
and is thus a painfully inadequate term to deal with the full panoply of
archaeological research post-dating, say, 1750.
> Of course in Australia full history only starts when the American forces
> arrive in 1942 and save the day.
On the contrary, according to Sellars and Yeatman, history ended in 1918
when, following the conclusion of WWI, "American was thus top nation,
and history came to a."
;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Brooks
Department of Archaeology
University of York
King's Manor
York
YO1 7EP
England, UK
phone: 01904 433931
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Buffalo tastes the same on both sides of the border"
Sitting Bull
|
|
|