Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:00:24 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
"If our colleagues
across the pond have sited described by Romans in 44 B.C, then we have to be
pretty liberal about the definition of historical archaeology." quoted from Ron May's message.
No we don't. As far as I know, this list was not intended to cover the archaeology of all cultures with written records (want to go back to the Egyptians or Sumerians, anyone?). Nor does it even include all of the Society for Historical Archaeology. I think the users tend to forget that this list is created and maintained by Anita. Since she puts in the work, I feel she can limit it any way she sees fit.
From using this list, it is my impression that it covers what a lot of us call historical archaeology in the US (meaning post-contact) and what I think they call post-medieval in Europe. I seem to remember that this site has included discussions from Autralia and other contexts in the past, and has not been limited to "New World" materials only. So I have no problem with what is covered.
Meli Diamanti
|
|
|