Historical Archaeology is the archaeology of the Modern World (AD [or 
if you prefer CE] 1400 to the Present. Marco is a bit too early for 
our subject matter. Historical Archaeology is not the archaeology of 
history - there are many archaeologies of history (e.g. Classical 
Archaeology, Egyptology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Mesoamerican 
Archaeology, the archaeology of early China and India, and many other 
archaeologies of history, including Medieval Archaeology (which is 
Marco's period - I know because I went to grammar school with him- 
never did believe his stories about the Great Khan). These 
specializations have nothing, or little, to do with our discipline or 
its subject matter - different subject matters, periods, disciplinary 
histories, general scholarly setting etc. etc..

Also there are other scholars who study the material remains of 
historic periods (e.g. architectural historians, art historians) who 
are not archaeologists and who do not necessarily study the Modern Period.

The date of AD 1400 is arbitrary but almost all scholars (historians 
and social scientists) accept the concept of the Modern World. We 
have a clear subject matter and a very important one. We do not also 
need to claim to be Egyptologists. Nor does a clear definition of our 
field mean we should not be interested in a broader level of doing 
comparative studies that cut across the Pre-Modern/Modern time 
division but then we will be acting as general archaeologists, 
anthropologists, or general historians and it is very unlikely we 
will be (or should be) the people who excavated the other period 
sites involved in such comparisons.

The Archaeology of the Modern World (which, of course, does not start 
on January 1, 1400 8AM, nor in some areas of the world even start 
until the 18th or 19th century) is our subject matter and it is a 
vital subject matter to general history and all of social science.

Bob Schuyler



At 02:35 PM 3/30/2009, you wrote:
>"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

Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
3260 South Street
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]