Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:21:30 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that there are no other historical archaeologists in the entire state of Michigan--that would have been silly. Of course there are historical archaeologists at Michigan Tech--as well as Western Michigan University, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and Oakland University. (There may very well be others I'm not aware of.) What I was saying is that there are no other historical archaeologists specifically at the University of Michigan.
Bob
>>> Morgan Blanchard <[log in to unmask]> 03/07/09 12:01 PM >>>
I think the fact that there are no other historical archaeologists in
Michigan might come as something of a surprise to the folks at Michigan Tech.
Putting that aside, as someone who intentionally got a degree in history as a
foundation for a Ph.D. in Historical archaeology, I think that both fields have
something to say on any given topic. They can be highly complementary, but
they ask different questions, in keeping with their training and the
philosophies which underlay that training. Neither is in itself "right."
At the moment I am writing an historic context for my dissertation. I am
working on sites associated with the first communication system in Alaska and
have thousands of pages of primary source material and 11,000 artifacts
excavated at 4 sites. To do the project justice will take the skills of a
historian and an archaeologist. Will I be asking different questions than a
historian? Sure, but then another archaeologist tackling the project might ask
entirely different questions as well.
I think we need to learn more about each other and respect the differences in
approach. If nothing else it would be an act of self preservation. After all,
if we all thought alike we would be competing for the same jobs and there are
way to many historians out there!
Morgan Blanchard, MA, RPA
University of Nevada, Reno
|
|
|