Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:18:36 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Having trained and worked as both an archaeologist and historian I have
to agree with Lynda that faults are on both sides. So a pox on both
your houses. In my book the most annoying are archaeologists who think
they can understand historical sources without years gaining the
relevant background knowledge of palaeography, law, historiography etc
of the period involved. The average CRM phase 1 historical contribution
in the UK is clearly written by people whose historical knowedge is
based on watching TV cartoons. Not surprising as our schools only treach
20th century history these days ofen repeating the same stuff at
different ages- sorry for this very British gripe. Historians in general
just prefer to ignore the existence of archaeology and archaeologists
even in fields like ceramic history where archaeologists are half a
century ahead. I remember a debate on some website on medieval housing
where the only source that seemed to count for most participants was the
last book by an American academic historian covering the subject in 2
pages- itself a review of British archaeological work but
unfortunately it was written just at the point as the existing paradigm
was demolished, thrown in the dustbin and rethought.
paul courtney
leicester
UK
|
|
|