Hey, I would be interested in the World War II material! I have begun to
hear of field investigations of battle sites, bunkers, and other poorly
documented sites in Europe. Just because something was created during a time when
people were capable of writing records, does not mean they actually wrote
anything. And things created in the fog of war are never remembered the same by the
survivors. Does this mean we cannot discuss things poorly documented?
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc. (and trouble maker from way back)
In a message dated 3/30/2009 12:42:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I'm just suffering a touch of vertigo, here; I'm working on a site in Aachen
that has some WW2 & post-WW2 material, 19th century, Baroque/Renaissance,
medieval, Carolingian & Roman, none of which, despite the presence of
written records (some shoddy, granted, but a lot of it is there), it's not
historical in your sense of the word; some of it might be "post-medieval,"
but then some of it is "medieval" & some of it is "Classical"...
-----Original Message-----
Using that rationale, we can start asking questions based on Julius
Caesar and the Gauls, or Ibn Fadlan and the Russian Vikings ...
Neither topic is consistent with the prevailing definition of
Historical Archaeology, which I would paraphrase as the study of
Western expansionist interaction with rest of the world in the Age of
Discovery and beyond
**************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)
|