It seems to me that historical archaeology is still archaeology, which
in turn is rooted in anthropology.  We're still studying human behavior,
we're just fortunate enough to have a written record.  I've known some
fine historians who were pretty bad archaeologists and vice versa.  I
personally was lucky enough to study under a person who taught the value
of both the material and the documents, which I think is the key.

Paul G. Avery, RPA
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl
Steen
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: An academic-type question

 
In a message dated 7/16/2007 6:53:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Obviously -

Real Historical Archaeology should be centered in  History Departments,
where students are as well grounded in documentary  analysis as they are
in
material culture analysis, and can become equally  capable of exploiting
the
strengths of each method in their  investigations.

Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO


Anthropology, obviously, as the focus is on human behavior, and those
passed 
over by history, not the members of society wealthy enough to go to
school, 
sit around and think and write, and provide secure long term storage for
what 
they produce. History, as they say, is written by the winnners - not
people  
who objectively chronicle what they see. There was much debate on this
in the  
60s and 70s...
 
Carl Steen



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour