Sounds like a good excuse for a few beers at York though my misses is coming
so if I get ahangover like the one at Mobile I will be in big trouble.
paul courtney
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Pfeiffer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am
> Howdy, Paul! I certainly do NOT mean to denigrate the documentary
> evidence. Historical archaeology would be much more difficult without it
> (insert large grin here). I agree that my trust in the
> artifact/feature/site level data is to a fair degree becauser I am both
> more familiar and comforable with it. I also agree that everyone in our
> field can think of endless cases of misinterpreted data. The "hard
> sciences" have consistently had to deal with the problem of data
> mis-interpetation as well as the social scientists.
>
> I also agree with the point (I believe it was Ron May's) historical
> documentation summaries and reports, seldom have what I need to help
answer
> the questions I am asking. I usually have to go back to the original or
> baseline data (wills, letters, diaries, etc.). The same is often true for
> me in archaeological reports where I have to go back and actually look at
> the artifacts for myself. Historians have the problems as archaeologist
in
> that their publications simply can not reproduce every single lilttle bit
> of their documentation. We can not illustrate every artifact, publish
> every profile, conduct every test known to science and so on and put them
> into our reports.
>
> The nature of scientific inquiry is that we almost always have to go back
> to the original sources of information ourselves. The more narrow and
> particular the nature of our inquiry, the more dependent we will be on
> original sources.
>
> I have never learned a danged thing from those that already agree with me.
> The folks that I have always been indebted to are the ones that diasagree
> with me. Besides, problems of interpretation are a great reason to get
> together and hoist a few at the SHAs. Of course, when it gets down to
> "Alien Landing Pads", a new topic may be in order.
>
> Smoke.
>
>
> Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA
> Ozark-St. Francis National Forests
> 605 West Main Street
> Russellville, Arkansas 72801
> (479) 968-2354 Ext. 233
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
>
>
>
>
> paul courtney
> <paul.courtney2@NT To: [log in to unmask]
> LWORLD.COM> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: Just the
facts, ma'am
> HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> 03/15/2004 11:40
> AM
> Please respond to
> HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I trust archaeological data a LOT more than many classes of
> > historical data. SMOKE that is probably because you are dealing with the
> archaeological data yourself and are more expert in it. I can think of
> endless cases of misinterpreted arcaheological data, - one of the
commonest
> is not allowing for destruction of evidence or people inventing kilns from
> 1
> sherd of distorted pot. The commonest misuse of historical data is
probably
> not to read and understand documents in their entirity but to pull
> sentences
> out of context. I can think of a few archaeologists who have misread
> documents. One amateur archaeologist wrote an entire book chapter based
on
> a misreading of street name and a famous British archaeologist's
> misreading
> of a medieval latin document had me searching for days for a windmill
> rebuilt with elm trees- in fact its sails had beene repaired with so many
> ells of cloth. Of course professional historians get it wrong also- thank
> goodness or it all have been said a hundred years ago. I won't bore you
> with
> a long list of archaeological excvations whose interpretation would be
> radically different had I not had inspired thoughts based on the
> documentary
> evidence. However, in my experience of several decades working on both
> arcahaeology and documents- the score is even on misinterpretation.
>
> paul courtney
> historical archaeologist and/or archaeological historian
> Leicester UK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Pfeiffer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am
>
>
> > I also finish graduate school over 20 years ago. My Major Professor
> (Rick
> > Sprague) encouraged all of the grad student considering Historical
> > Archaeology to take history courses, particularly "Method and Theory in
> > History". The history department at the Univ. of Odaho back then
> welcomed
> > all students interested in the subject.
> >
> > Take a course like that and you will see how SLANTED the historical
> record
> > can be! I trust archaeological data a LOT more than many classes of
> > historical data.
> >
> > Smoke
> >
> >
> > Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA
> > Ozark-St. Francis National Forests
> > 605 West Main Street
> > Russellville, Arkansas 72801
> > (479) 968-2354 Ext. 233
> > e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Carl Barna
> > <[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> > gov> cc:
> > Sent by: Subject: Re: Just the
> facts, ma'am
> > HISTORICAL
> > ARCHAEOLOGY
> > <[log in to unmask]
> > u>
> >
> >
> > 03/12/2004 02:36
> > PM
> > Please respond
> > to HISTORICAL
> > ARCHAEOLOGY
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > HI --
> >
> > Well, I am glad to hear that we may be seeing a sea change in the
> training
> > of HAs. I think its overdue, but still encouraging.
> >
> > But on the darker sider, I continue to remain shocked and dismayed at
how
> > many newly crowned PhDs I meet at SHA meetings who tell me, upon my
> > questioning them, that they'd had no training in or exposure to history
> at
> > the college level - nor was it required in their HA program - and yet
> they
> > call themselves Historical Archaeologists.
> >
> > One small step and hurrah for personal initiative!
> >
> > Carl Barna
> > Regional Historian
> > BLM Colorado State Office
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was trained in the traditional anthropology route common in the US.
As
> I
> > was specializing in historical archaeology, I assumed that I would be
> > taking courses in history and geography. Not only did I not meet with
> any
> > resistance from my faculty committee, they were laboring under the same
> > expectations as I, so I found courses from these disciplines readily
> became
> > a part of my program. Also, the faculty in history and geography in
> whose
> > classes I enrolled, were uniformly welcoming, even though I was not in
> > their own graduate program. Now I finished graduate coursework just
over
> > 20 years ago, so maybe the world of graduate studies has changed.
> >
> > Tom Langhorne
> >
> >
> >
> > >To respond to Carl's comment: While the archaeology departments may
not
> > >list history classes in their catalogs, it's my experience from talking
> to
> > >the new generation of historical archaeologists that most of us who
have
> > >chosen to get our degree in an archaeology department that do not
> > specialize
> > >in historical archaeology have taken all of their electives and
> additional
> > >classes in history. I don't think the problem is the education that the
> > >students are getting. I think it's academia. I know many historians
> who
> > >have to battle their professors to take archaeology classes and
> although,
> > as
> > >I said above, many of us historical archaeologists have a lot of
> training
> > in
> > >history, it is by our own initiative and sometimes tenacity that this
is
> > so.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Carl
> > >Barna
> > >Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:49 AM
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am
> > >
> > >Adrain --
> > >
> > >A perfect example of why students in Historical Archaeology need to be
> > also
> > >trained in History, not currently the situation in US anthro-oriented
> grad
> > >school HA programs.
> > >
> > >Carl Barna
> > >Regional Historian
> > >BLM Colorado State Office
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > praetzellis
> > > <[log in to unmask] To:
> [log in to unmask]
> > > ET> cc:
> > > SCHAEOLOGY <HIOGY Subject: Just the
> facts,
> > >ma'am
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"If you provide a research design that. explains why archaeological
data
> > >are better than archival or historic sources for studying these
> questions,
> > >the THC will support it."
> > >
> > >Barile continues.
> > >
> > >".this statement re-emphasized the tendency to separate archaeology
from
> > >the cohesive study of all historic cultural resources, including
> > >architecture, archival research, and oral history."
> > >
> > >
> > >Adrian Praetzellis
> > >Sonoma State University
> >
> > W. Thomas Langhorne, Jr., Ph.D. [log in to unmask]
> > Pre-Health Professions Advisor (phone) 607-777-6305
> > Adjunct Assistant Professor-Anthropology (fax) 607-777-2721
> > Binghamton University
> > P.O. Box 6000
> > Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
> > http://harpur-advising.binghamton.edu/prehealth
> >
> > This message and any attachments may contain information that is
> protected
> > by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole
> use
> > of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of
> > this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.
> If
> > you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the
> > sender by e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail.
|
