Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:33:28 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have trained in both archaeology and history with a bit of
environmental sciences, historical anthroplogy and geography thrown in.
I am still amazed at the miscomprehension of every discipline for every
other one but I am worried by people who think there own is not full of
its own biases. Some disciplinary differences are based in practice
such as archaeologists (excavators) unlike historians have a tendency of
destroying their primary evidence. Some of the differences are to do
with professionalisation ie boundary and career maintenance. Academics
are amazingly bad at applying the same critical eye at themselves as
they do to their subject areas.
US archaeology is anthropology based but Europeans (as geoff points out)
mostly come from different traditions and tend to think 'American
fascist Imperialists and that's just the printable words' if told they
should be otherwise by Americans.
paul
geoff carver wrote:
> in the US, maybe; here in germany they'll tell you that archaeology is
> rooted in winckelmann's "art history" (so archaeology is classed as a
> "humanities" subject) and point out that there is no comparable
> discipline of "anthropology": "anthropologie" is physical
> anthropology, sometimes US-anthropology is translated as "cultural
> anthropology," but i don't think it's taught at any universities here,
> and it's certainly not the parent-discipline
>
> ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: An academic-type question
>
>
> archaeology, which
> in turn is rooted in anthropology.
|
|
|