I do not want to reopen the debate which has been aired a number of times
on HISTARCH over history-based historical archaeology
and anthropology-based historical archaeology. I stand with anthropology
although I agree with the point that archaeologists need
to do much more with secondary historical scholarship (e.g. read books by
historians [they write 90% of the important ones on most historic time
periods and topics], belong to the historical associations,  and use more
broadly based continuing approaches to primary written sources). At the
same time I would endorse Mike Polk's statement. However, it also needs to
be pointed out
that anthropological archaeology was never limited to prehistory. Such
scholars also studied ancient literate civilizations ranging
from Mesopotamia through the Maya to the Indus Valley Civilization. This
tradition goes back to the 19th century.

More importantly since the 1960s many undergraduates have been first
introduced to archaeology in the context of historical
archaeology (i.e. archaeology of the modern world) rather than prehistoric
studies. Simply mentioning the fairly massive sales
of James Deetz' two books (Invitation to Archaeology - and - In Small
Things Soon Forgotten) within an academic context
across the last thirty years makes this point.

The case of the University of Pennsylvania, since it involves three
different traditions, is perhaps revealing. Historical Archaeology
was first encouraged and build within the context of the Department of
American Civilization [an anthropological version of
American Studies], not in History or in Anthropology although the key
person, John Cotter, was very much an anthropologist.
Historical Archaeology flourished in that context and has continued to do
so with its partial move into a more tolerant
Anthropology Department. In Am Civ students had a nice combination of
American history and an anthropological tradition. However these scholars
were not standard "historians". They were either from the American
Civilization tradition itself [Murray Murphey, Tony Garvan, Mel Hammarberg,
Drew Faust] or from other fields [e.g. Henry Glassie from
Folklore-Folklife, Don Yoder - same department, Anthony Wallace -
Anthropology and ethnohistory, or members of the Historic Preservation
Program].

We were never able to build any bridges to the History Department and there
are no such connections to this day. I truly
believe that there are deep differences in the orientation of most of the
discipline of history and those of anthropology
(or related fields such as Am Civ or Folklore-Folklife or Cultural
Geography) that makes archaeology, including historical
archaeology, a much better fit with that field. Individual historians from
a Herb Gutman (American social history) to
Lynn White (medieval history) as far as I am concerned only demonstrate
this pattern more clearly as exceptions.

This is true in American scholarship. It may, of course, be different in
those traditions where anthropology did not exist
until recently or where a more "antiquarian"  (e.g. viewing material
culture as equally important as documents) point of view
was still accepted.

                                         R.L. Schuyler,  Esq.



At 04:11 PM 8/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--Boundary_(ID_AeF6GsMixMvPW69W5Kp1og)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>In a message dated 8/29/2003 12:47:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>That's wye I think Historical Archs. should come out of history-based
>programs, not out of prehistoric-oriented anthro depts.
>
>As you say, anyone can dig a hole, but putting the results of that effort
>into an historic/ interpretive framework that allows you to not only
>evaluate what you found, but to also integrate and show the
>importance/value of your findings within the broader historical record, is
>where historical training shows it value.  That requires deep reading, and
>a knowledge of the historical record and how history (historiography) has
>been looked at over time. That does not come from the shallow understanding
>that arises from the typical reading a few isolated publications related to
>one's next project area.
>I actually not not agree on this point.  Not that I would disagree that
>people who come from history based programs wouldn't do well in historical
>archaeology, but I have dealt with too many historians from those programs
>who have no
>use for and find little value in archaeology in general, particularly as it
>relates to the field of history.  I have also worked with a number of
>archeologists who have come from the historic field.  In the limited cases
>which I have
>observed, I have found them lacking in the perspective and understanding
>which anthropologically trained individuals have shown more promise.  This
>is not
>to say that historically trained people cannot learn the wide scope of
>archaeological and anthropological concepts and skills, but my
>observations have been
>that there is more of a resistence to learning such among historically
>trained people.
>
>Now on the other side, I agree that many prehistorians care less than
>historians about historical archaeology.  However, I have also worked
>with, employed
>and been around many prehistorically trained individuals (I myself was trained
>in that field), who, when finding historic archaeology more interesting and
>engaging than prehistory, have excelled in the field.  Often, their previous
>training (and particularly their anthropological training) helped them enhance
>their understanding of historic sites and the field of historical archaeology
>as a whole.
>
>Mike Polk
>Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
>Ogden, Utah
>
>--Boundary_(ID_AeF6GsMixMvPW69W5Kp1og)
>Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>
>In a message dated 8/29/2003 12:47:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time, carl_b=
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>That's wye I think Historical Archs. should co= me out of history-based
>programs, not out of prehistoric-oriented anthro=20= depts.
>
>As you say, anyone can dig a hole, but putting the results of=20= that effort
>into an historic/ interpretive framework that allows you to n= ot only
>evaluate what you found, but to also integrate and show the
>im= portance/value of your findings within the broader historical record, is
>= where historical training shows it value.  That requires deep
>reading,=20= and
>a knowledge of the historical record and how history (historiography)= has
>been looked at over time. That does not come from the shallow unders= tanding
>that arises from the typical reading a few isolated publications=20=
>related to
>one's next project area.
>
>I actually not not agree on this point.  Not that I would disagree= that
>people who come from history based programs wouldn't do well in histor=
>ical archaeology, but I have dealt with too many historians from those
>progr= ams who have no use for and find little value in archaeology in
>general, par= ticularly as it relates to the field of history.  I have
>also worked wi= th a number of archeologists who have come from the
>historic field.  In= the limited cases which I have observed, I have found
>them lacking in the p= erspective and understanding which
>anthropologically trained individuals hav= e shown more promise.  This is
>not to say that historically traine= d people cannot learn the wide scope
>of archaeological and anthropologi= cal concepts and skills, but my
>observations have been that there is mo= re of a resistence to learning
>such among historically trained people.<= /DIV>
>
>Now on the other side, I agree that many prehistorians care less t= han
>historians about historical archaeology.  However, I have also work= ed
>with, employed and been around many prehistorically trained individuals (=
>I myself was trained in that field), who, when finding historic
>archaeology=20= more interesting and engaging than prehistory, have
>excelled in the field.&n=
>bsp; Often, their previous training (and particularly their a=
>nthropological training) helped them enhance their understanding of his=
>toric sites and the field of historical archaeology as a whole.
>
>Mike Polk
>Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
>Ogden, Utah
>
>--Boundary_(ID_AeF6GsMixMvPW69W5Kp1og)--

Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
33rd & Spruce Streets
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]