Mike Polk wrote:

> <snips happen>   I
>have always been a generalist and am attracted to the field of archaeology
>and historical archaeology, in particular, because of its eclectic nature and
>the fact that virtually anything and everything in this world has the
>potential, in some way, to contribute to our attempt to better understand
>history and human behavior.

Mike is correct. While an architectural historian can describe a building,
a mere architectural evaluation is a hollow vessel. The insights of
archaeology can bring a building to life, even if it is still occupied.

That's the standing part of the building, not just the back yard.
Archaeological methods can, and should, be used to understand standing and
occupied structures, especially places where historically important
industrial processes are taking place.

I grow tired of reading evaluations by architectural historians who haven't
a clue about a building's real history or significance. A  state
transportation department commissioned a bridge survey  by an architectural
historian who never seemed to understand the function of bridges, or their
place in the history of society. In most cases, the reader of this report
will not get a clue as to why the bridge was built, why it was elaborated
in a particular way, or why it was located in a particular spot. Any
archaeologist worth his salt would have asked such questions, while they
are not on the radar screen when an architectural historian tries to do the
job.

Ned Heite  ([log in to unmask])
*******************************
For the ultimate time, I am not
a tightwad!!! Maybe expenditure
challenged, but not tight!!!!!!
*******************************