Herr Doktor Prof. May -
If I have a bias, it is a bias based on solid experience in TRYING to find
a way to work with Historical Archaeologists, and for having had some 20
credit hours in HA-Anthro beyond my History MA, plus a Field School and
site experience. I have seen this issue from both sides of the fence.
At least on a practical level in the CRM game in which I play, these guys
love to hide behind Criterion D for anointing every pile of tin cans as
being historically important and eligible for the NR. Criterion D says
"...likely to yield information IMPORTANT in history or prehistory."
How can these guys know what's important in History if they have never
progressed beyond the route or particularistic learning approach to History
that they experienced in High School?
No, Sir.
Years ago John Knoerl and Kathleen Deagan hit the nail squarely on the head
when they talked about asking questions that count. These anthro types who
never progressed beyond HS History, who never belonged to or participated
in any professional history organizations like the WHA, OHA, (how many
readers of this belong to the these organizations? Yet, many probably all
run to the SAA meetings) etc. are totally unaware of recent trends and
issues in historical scholarship and so are incapable, IMHO, of asking the
questions that really count or identifying the information important in
History that Criterion D demands.
I am sure that some on this list will chime in with the fact that they may
have earned dual degrees. Hurray for them, but these comments are not
addressed to them.
Historians spend an entire lifetime studying an era or particular theme in
History. The HAs I encounter are trolling a military site one day, a
homestead the next, and a logging or mining site a week after that one,
etc., etc. There is no way they are going to have sufficient command of
even one of those themes to be able to ID the important historical info
their site is likely to yield in terms of Criterion D or anything other
standard. Talk about intellectual arrogance.
HA MA or PhD students should be required to take graduate-level history
course work in the era, e.g. Colonial America, or the thematic area(s),
e.g. social, military, mining, etc., history that they hope to work in.
Then I will feel that they will have an adequate intellectual background
for their archaeological studies.
When one of these anthro-based HAs finds a piece of printers type with the
Skull-and-Crossbones symbol of the Stamp Act protest and hasn't a clue as
to what the Stamp Act was, (similar experiences I have often encounters)
doesn't leave me with a good impression of their training or capabilities.
I am sure there are many reading this who are too hard-wired into the
Anthro umbrella approach to HA to really look beyond it, but I am getting
too old for these argument's that really don't change anything.
However, Ron O'l Chap, I do share and heartily second your views that HA
should be an interdisciplinary field where the two disciplines are really
melded. I see very little of that, and I don't see how it can happen in
the one-dimensional approach the current training and practice in HA takes.
Yo, ho.
Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO
Ron May
<[log in to unmask]
> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
HISTORICAL cc
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask] Subject
> Re: An academic-type question
07/17/2007 02:33
AM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
Not so, Carl. Your bias in favor of academic history departments is just as
bad as the anthropologists who feel it belongs in their department. This is
a
field that benefits from both schools of thought, as well as about 10 years
of good practical experience apprenticing under someone who has truly
mastered
the field (not to be confused with a MA degree).
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
|
