Scruffy?  Unemployed?    Hmmm.... I've always thought that archaeologists
benefited more than historians from 106 and other environmental /
preservation legislation (job wise), and so were the better employed.
Personally, I've found it hard to interest   academic historians in
preservation issues (preservation of historic places that is, as opposed to
documents)  -  especially when it came to donating their time to construct
historic contexts.  Whereas, generally, I could always "guilt-trip" an
archaeologist into helping because they saw this as an ethical duty.   In
fact I vaguely remember an old CRM publication (the one published by the
Dept. of the Interior) that discussed the lack of interest in preservation
by traditional historians.  Does anyone else remember this issue?  Has
anyone else had the same experience?

I truly believe that we historical archaeologists need to be trained in
history & historical methods, and we need to do our own historical research,
and not farm it out to "specialists."  We look at the documents differently,
and that's  a good thing.

About the earlier post concerning our abilities to deal with the public.  I
suppose acting class could be one way to go.  I discovered the National
Association for Interpretation (park interpreters) and it "changed my life."
It's a professional organization that actually specializes in helping dry
boring scientists learn how to deal effectively with the public.  Check them
out:  www.interpnet.org


Linda Derry
Site Director
Old Cahawba Archaeological Site
719 Tremont Street
Selma, AL 36701-5446
334/875-2529
[log in to unmask]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Carol
> A Nickolai
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:20 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Facts and more
>
>
> Some universities do offer programs intended to do more local historical
> research. I had the good fortune to be able to take a "public history"
> minor as an undergrad, it was aimed at training local historians and
> museum professionals and had a sequence of practical doing local history
> classes.
>
> Of course, there was an absolute line between the history department and
> the anthropology department, complete with advising students not to take
> classes in the other department. A memorable quote from the then-history
> department chair: "How do you tell the difference between historians and
> archaeologists? Historians are well-dressed people with jobs,
> archaeologists are scruffy people who look like they've just crawled out
> from under a rock (and they probably have)."
>
> I understand the situation there is much friendlier now.
>
> Carol
> --
> Carol A. Nickolai
>
> Anthropology
> University of Pennsylvania
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Ned Heite wrote:
> >
> > Yes, as Dan remarked, we have been through this thread before.  So
> > should the archaeologist students take more history courses? I
> > seriously doubt it would do much good. Yes, there are some damn good
> > historians in college history departments.
> >
> > But most college history departments of my acquaintance are populated
> > largely by history teachers, not historians.
> >
> > University history is a field where a student's success generally is
> > measured by the prestige of the institution where he obtains a
> > tenure-track position. Any other career track is failure, period. The
> > whole structure of academic history departments is geared to
> > producing the next generation of academic history departments.
> >
> > In such a mind-set, there is no need to do deed research, but more
> > importantly, there is no place for relating particular site-specific
> > information to the broader themes of history.  In our everyday work,
> > we typically see evidence of larger themes, or at least we are
> > supposed to see them.
> >
> > If we are digging a twentieth-century dairy, for example, we should
> > see evidence of changed sanitary practices resulting from better
> > comprehension of germ theory. A sudden increase in oyster cans has
> > been interpreted to indicate the opening of a railroad to the site
> > vicinity, because oysters were a delicacy unavailable before the
> > railroad arrived. The size of tin cans is a direct product of the
> > size of tinplate sheets from which they are cut; changes in can size
> > may reflect changes in the tinplate supply.
> >
> > The connections go on and on and on, but too many archaeologists
> > remain blissfully ignorant of anything outside the soil profile of
> > the hole where they happen to be digging.
> >
> > A young archaeological student once asked me about the qualifications
> > of a colleague.  "What's her specialty?" I answered, "Urban
> > historical geography." The youngster looked at me blankly, "What's
> > that got to do with archaeology?"  I just gave up, mumbled
> > "everything" and changed the subject.
> >
> > So the kids coming out of the anthropology departments haven't a clue
> > about history and the kids coming out of the history departments are
> > no better off.
> >
> >
> > --
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > A sure sign you're over the hill is when you catch yourself referring
> > to your "dress" Birkenstocks!
> >
>