Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:28:59 -0400 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-disposition: |
inline |
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I'm sorry if the question, which relates specifically to where a *U.S.
historical archaeologist* should be based, seems redundant. It
originally arose from a very specific situation based on our desire
to improve a center and program by winning another academic
position in a time and place where such resources are very hard to
come by.
----- Original Message -----
From: Janice Adamson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: An academic-type question
> This really has opened a can of worms. I believe the debate as to
> whatdepartment archaeology should be based in is redundant
and while
> interesting, is not particularly constructive. In New Zealand our
two
> universities both have archaeology based in Anthropology. It is
> different in
> Australia. Really, whatever department is prepared to adequately
> fund the
> archaeologist to practice archaeology, using archaeological
> methods, which
> in the case of historical archaeology also means using historical
> sources,but most importantly, is prepared to fund archaeological
> research and
> excavation and provide access to equipment, technology and
further
> training. Essentially an archaeologist should be able to practice
> archaeologywherever they are based.
>
>
> Janice Adamson
> PhD Candidate University of Auckland
> 103 Connell Street
> Blockhouse Bay
> Auckland 1007
> New Zealand
> ph hm 09 6267860 mob 021 2869511
>
|
|
|