Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:35:07 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
"historical archaeology is the archaeology of the New World"
Is this really the consensus definition of historical archaeology? Is there no historical archaeology at sites on other continents?
Richard D. Davis, MA
[Contractor: Colorado State University]
Cultural Resource Program Coordinator
Fort Campbell, KY
phone: 270-798-7437
fax: 270-798-7230
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anita Cohen-Williams
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Marco Polo/Cologne
But, historical archaeology is the archaeology of the New World, NOT history. We use written documents combined with archaeology to help us explore the sites.
Marco Polo is a historical figure that has nothing to do with historical archaeology as a discipline. If you want to discuss medieval archaeology, I suggest moving over to the ARCH-L discussion list.
I left the Cologne archives story on the list because the politics swirling around the collapse are something that all archaeologists have to deal with in a modern world.
I try to keep this discussion list as on topic as possible. If you feel that I am censoring posts, I suggest you go start your own list and see what it is like.
--
Anita Cohen-Williams
Listowner, HISTARCH, SUB-ARCH, and SPANBORD
Twitter: @searchguru
|
|
|