Re Carl's point,

there are some forthcoming papers on exactly this point which Paul has
worked tirelessly to get to press. The papers arouse from that sort of
frustration of lack of interdisciplinary co-operation. Even reading the
relevant literature (you wouldn't have to talk to anyone) would be helpful.
This is why I found the reaction to Landscape and Memory such a bore,
cultural and social geographers were working in this area long before
Schama. But the historians did not seem to realise this.

As an archaeological example are points at which Hodder and Tilley seem to
doing the same thing as Dennis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels (geographers)
but they seemed to be unaware of each other.

Dare I say it but some archaeologists seem to be too concerned with bottles
and pots to ever be bothered understanding the past. This attitude makes
their work make much less of a contribution to history (by which I mean the
study of the past) than it could be.  And after all that painstaking work,
what a waste!

yours

Iain Stuart

[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: landscape again-PC


> Hi, Paul --
>
> Your comments echo what I, as a historian, have been saying for years
about
> the needs for INTERdisciplinary approaches, where people in different
> disciplines  looking at similar issues and questions do, in fact, talk to
> each other.
>
> Glad to see that I'm not the only one getting those frustrations.  ;o)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Carl Barna
> Regional Historian
> BLM Colorado State Office