I think you'll find that the Brits use historical archaeology to mean  
the archaeology of any group with a written tradition, nominally  
starting with the Romans in 44AD and afterward, with appropriate  
mutterings about the Dark Ages that had little survival of the written  
record. That would also seem to be the prevailing view in Northern  
Europe as well, AFAIK.

Lyle Browning


On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Mark Branstner wrote:

> C'mon Ron,
>
> 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.  OK, Marco Polo may presage that, but not  
> in the sense of the capitalist hegemony that marks the modern period.
>
> Mark
> -- 
>
> Mark C. Branstner, RPA
> Historic Archaeologist
>
> Illinois Transportation
> Archaeological Research Program
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
> 23 East Stadium Drive
> Champaign, IL 61820
>
> Phone: 217.244.0892
> Fax: 217.244.7458
> Cell: 517.927.4556
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> "I hope there's pudding" - Luna Lovegood (HP5)
>
> "If you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"-  
> Anonymous