Jim Gibbs' 1997 article in Historical Archaeology  (31:3, p. 51-64) offered 
very good guidelines about how to write for the public, and an example in 
which he actually does it. Brian Fagan, almost a decade later with his 2006 
Telling Stories about the Past , also points the way. I'm sure there are 
other examples where our peers have attempted to get us to do this, and to 
show us how.

Will we will still be bemoaning how little we write FOR the public in 2016? 
And how university hiring and tenure committees still discount such efforts? 
And how historians don't use our stuff? Probably!

But maybe not (hopeful but tentative!).

Carol




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darby Stapp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: The continuing debate Industrial Archaeology


>I think the major reason we are not relevant to others is because 
>anthropologists and archaeologists only like to write to themselves.  It is 
>much easier to write a very fine paper on how gender is reflected in the 
>archaeological record, than it is to transform that information into 
>knowledge and explain it to the public or a professional from another 
>field. Its hard work and few need to make the effort to keep their job.  In 
>fact, writing for others, especially the public, is no road to tenure. 
>Until we make a concerted effort to write for others, it is difficult to 
>address these other questions as to why we are not relevant.
>
> Darby
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: The continuing debate Industrial Archaeology
>
>
>> No I think what he is saying is that if only archaeologists use our  data 
>> we are marginalized and unimportant. Assuming David is right,  and I have 
>> certainly seen evidence that archaeology is ignored by  many historians, 
>> there are a number of possible reasons:
>>
>> 1- We are not marketing our product very well. This assumes that we  have 
>> something to offer the other disciplines and they just have not 
>> recognized it yet.
>>
>> 2- The other disciplines have examined what we do and have decided it  is 
>> useless for their purposes. In which case perhaps we need to look  at 
>> "repackaging".
>>
>> 3- The other disciplines are stupid, or blinkered. While the later is 
>> certainly true of some practitioners, I find it difficult to believe 
>> that it is true of entire disciplines that could make use of 
>> archaeologically derived data. On the other hand I recently read a 
>> "scholarly" work on the use of slaves in the American iron industry.  The 
>> author managed to get a considerable amount of both the  historical 
>> background and technology wrong. While he  acknowledge the  assistance of 
>> a veritable who's who of historians, he didn't bother  to consult any 
>> archaeometallurgists.
>>
>> 4- We aren't especially relevant. Something I am loath to admit, as I 
>> have spent a considerable part of my life as an archaeologist. But if 
>> true this may be attributable to a number of causes, including that  we 
>> have marginalized ourselves. And all of us will have to admit that  there 
>> have been lots of papers we have sat through and articles we  have tried 
>> to read that were pretty irrelevant.
>>
>> James Brothers, RPA
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2006, at 13:18, Ron May wrote:
>>
>>> So, the gist of what you are saying, David, is that because Nobel  Prize
>>> winning scholars do not use our archaeology data that we are 
>>> marginalized and
>>> unimportant? Is this what you are saying?
>>>
>>> Ron May
>>> Legacy 106, Inc.