Actually, there are many people who contributed to our current understanding
of the field of historical archaeology. Let us not forget Rick Sprague, John
Goggin, Rex Gerald, or many of the first people who formed together at the
beginning of the Society for Historical Archaeology. Back in the post war
1950s and '60s, no one had even debated whether to call it "historic" or
"historical" archaeology or whether we were to come from history or anthropology.
Those were scholarly battles for another time. But just because Bob Schuyler
settled on historical archaeology does not mean the evolution of what we embrace
in method and theory stopped at some point in the past. The truth be told,
people over age 60 who have been in this business for a while probably learned
entirely different field methodologies than the younger generations. Just
look at the shift from architecture to artifacts in that time. And while some
have told me offline in the past few days that "these issues have already been
decided" and that "further discussion is pointless," no issues have truly
been decided by the rest of us and further discussion will be fruitful.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
In a message dated 3/31/2009 12:29:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Well, sorry: I'd never heard of this; maybe self-proclaimed, & unquestioned
within the US, but that's not what we were taught in Canada, & that's not
the view here in Europe... especially since what is now called "historical
archaeology" (i.e. doing archaeology & comparing the results with historical
documents) has a history of at least 150 years, and I don't think even Bob
is that old...
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anita
Cohen-Williams
Sent: March 31, 2009 02:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Historical Archaeology
Geoff,
The source is Dr. Schuyler's book, Historical Archaeology. IMHO, Bob
is the father of Historical Archaeology as a discipline.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> OK: so where did this definition come from? It must come from somewhere,
> have a source, someone you can cite...
> But that still leaves me hanging: part of what I'm doing is historical
> (although I'd normally call the 19th & 20th century stuff "modern"), part
> medieval, part Classical, & possibly some prehistoric... except that the
> relation between historical & prehistoric...
> I'm confused... just give me the source & I'll read it myself
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Historical Archaeology is the archaeology of the Modern World (AD [or
> if you prefer CE] 1400 to the Present
>
--
Anita Cohen-Williams
Organic SEO and Social Media Marketing
http://www.mysearchguru.com
Twitter: @searchguru
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220439616x1201372437/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
|