Not that this simplifies the arguments, but the current "definitions" of
historical archaeology are not limited to being the archaeology of literate
societies.  Some define it as such, but others define is as the archaeology
of colonialism or capitalism or the modern world.  Others define it as a
process of using historical texts critically to supplement and enrich the
understanding of the archaeological record.  Certainly there is no cut and
dry definition of historical archaeology.  As new fields of study get
incorporated into "historical" archaeology the definition is bound to
continue to change.

Karen Hutchins
Boston University
Archaeology Dept.


On 7/18/07, Nathanael Heller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this definition works too well, at least with "Old World"
> archaeology. The Egyptians had writing by ca. 3000 B.C., the Sumerians
> before 2000 B.C., and pretty much all of the Middle East by or before 1000
> B.C. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient China, and even the Ancient
> Maya
> would qualify as literate societies, and thereby would be studied by
> "historic archaeologists."
>
> Nathanael Heller
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Susan Walter" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
>
>
> > some of those fuzzy edges...
> > I think of a contact site as between historic and prehistoric;
> > if the Indians had learned to write they become historic...
> > I'd think of your Chinese (etc.) stuff as historic trade...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Hysterical Archaeology
> >
> >
> > Fortunately for you, David, you're still willing to admit your
> confusion.
> > Hold onto that grad school naiveté as long as possible -- the real world
> > will beat it out of you soon enough and you, too, will find yourself
> > making
> > pronouncements about how to define your field of study. Historical
> > archaeology is like kivas in Southwestern Pueblo sites -- nobody knows
> how
> > to define it but we're all pretty sure we know it when we see it.
> > Susan Walters' (admirably) short-and-sweet definition brings to my mind
> a
> > situation on a project I'm working on now. We have sites that are
> Hispanic
> > ranchos -- so, clearly historic in time (i.e., after the introduction of
> > Europeans and written records), sites that are prehistoric Puebloan, and
> > sites with components that are prehistoric Puebloan, historic
> > Euroamerican,
> > and historic Puebloan. How, oh, how to classify?
> > Although my co-directors and I euphemistically refer amongst ourselves
> to
> > the resulting reports-in-progress as the historic and prehistoric
> volumes,
> > we are actually calling the volume that will deal with the Hispanic
> > components the"Euroamerican volume," while the volumes that will deal
> with
> > the Puebloan (and Archaic) components will be the "Native volumes."
> That,
> > of
> > course, will offend some folks who will contend that, by the late 18th
> > century (our oldest Hispanic component), Hispanics were natives of the
> > area.
> > The issue is not resolved by referring to Indians as Native Americans,
> > since
> > that term, too, could apply to the local Hispanics. In fact, my family
> has
> > lived in northern New Mexico for about 150 years, so I (sometimes
> hautily)
> > consider myself a native. But, we had to make a call, and we decided to
> > group the components of Euroamerican origin(s), even though many of the
> > artifacts were made by Indians, and to group the components of Indian
> > origin(s), even though at least one will be "historic" in age.
> > Nothing, of course, prevents us from comparing assemblages across
> presumed
> > ethnic and temporal boundaries.
> > We have stopped referring to "historic" artifacts and "historic artifact
> > analysis" and gone to "Euroamerican artifacts" and "Euroamerican
> artifact
> > analysis," admitting up front that items like Chinese porcelain and
> > Haitian
> > Phoenix buttons are not technically Euroamerican artifacts.
> > That's our happy little story, and we're sticking with it.
> > Has your confusion now given you a headache? If not, then I haven't done
> > my
> > job.
> > Jeff
> >
> > Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
> > Project Director
> > Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
> > mail: P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
> > physical: 407 Galisteo Street, Suite B-100, Santa Fe, New Mexico  87501
> > tel: 505.827.6387          fax: 505.827.3904
> > e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > "It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years
> > ime."  --Terry Pratchett
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY on behalf of David Parkhill
> > Sent: Wed 7/18/2007 9:22 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Hysterical Archaeology
> >
> >
> >
> > I am trying my best to understand all of the evaluations concerning the
> > terms "Historical Archaeology", "History"and "Archaeology". The more I
> > read, (it is all very good!) the more confused I become.
> >
> > It seems to me some folks are trying to defend their "Sacred Positions",
> > which I find is usual among intellectuals, while others are trying to
> just
> > confuse the issue. Being a neophyte in this area of study I keep asking,
> > Huh? So if I may be so bold as to admit, "I don't know!" Then "What the
> > heck is Historical Archaeology ?"
> >
> > With all due respect, I am really impressed with the quality and
> knowledge
> > of all of you and your willingness to share and support each other.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > This inbound email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
> > System.
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including all attachments is for
> the
> > sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> > privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> > distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New
> > Mexico
> > Inspection of Public Records Act. If you are not the intended recipient,
> > please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this message. --
> This
> > email has been scanned by the Sybari - Antigen Email System.
>