Dr. Sprague -

Thanks for your reply.  I think I've been picking up threads of that tone.

Your comment fits in with the experiences of my grad school days.  While I
was "in" history, I took several arch courses and a field school because I
believed, and still do, that historians who specialized in particular
areas-- in my old student days that area was 18C. military history--needed
to be conversant with historical archaeological practices,  methods, and
findings, perhaps even doing their own field work.  Anyway, the prof for my
"arch methods and theory" class was, still is, a famous prehistorian.  All
semester long while she based her lectures on her prehistoric researches, I
kept asking her for parallel examples in historic archaeology.  I could
tell I was beginning to irritate her when, near the end of the term,  she
blurted out that " historical archaeology is just dirt archaeology."   I
didn't know a whole lot, but I had the sense that that was not meant as a
compliment.

Cheers !

Carl Barna
BLM Regional Historian




                    Roderick
                    Sprague              To:     [log in to unmask]
                    <rsprague@MOS        cc:
                    COW.COM>             Subject:     SHA and SAA
                    Sent by:
                    HISTORICAL
                    ARCHAEOLOGY
                    <HISTARCH@asu
                    .edu>


                    12/15/2000
                    01:51 PM
                    Please
                    respond to
                    HISTORICAL
                    ARCHAEOLOGY






Carl and Bob

Re the formation of SHA and its relationship to SAA.  As one who was there
I can put the reason in four words:  A lack of respect.

Rick