Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:03:48 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
California developed an integrated inventory system in the early 1990s that
uses a single set of recording forms to record all built and archaeological
elements of a resource under a single numbering system. The manual and
forms can be accessed at the California Office of Historic Preservation web
site. The system merged formerly separate recording and numbering systems
(the former numbering systems have been maintained for continuity).
The idea was to address the disconnect between the disciplines. An
interdiciplinary team developed the system. Twenty years later, there does
seem to be a lot more awareness and interaction across the disciplines.
However, it has been a much steeper slope to convince historians and
architectural historians that historical archaeology actually adds something
meaningful to the record.
The common refrain we have all heard from those sister disciplines is: can
historical archaeology really make substantive (non-trivial) contributions
to history? That has had the beneficial effect of forcing historical
archaeologists to demonstrate more clearly the value of their work.
Contextualizing our research is all very nice, but it won't change the
opinions of historians until the archaeology itself plays a central role in
our interpretations.
Even more interesting is the issue of evaluating structural ruins and
cultural landscapes, which are another productive intersection of the
disciplines. Collaboration has become the norm for those types of
reasources and that has resulted in the greatest convergence (not always
harmonic, but a good dialog in any case).
Thad Van Bueren
|
|
|