I agree with Bob that HISTARCH is an important forum for all of us that needs to be maintained.
Pat Garrow
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Schuyler" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2009 8:01 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: "Parents" and Historical Archaeology
>
>I will do a longer piece on this issue later today but I want to tell Anita:
>
> (1) Do not give up HISTARCH. It is a vital tool for all
>those who study Historical Archaeology, that is, the archaeology of
>the Modern World (ca. AD 1400 to the Present). Other types of
>archaeologies of history have their own discussion groups as they should.
>
> God Bless Anita and HISTARCH. Ranging from questions of
>theory to identifying specific artifacts, HISTARCH is one of our best
>research and communication tools we have. SHA honored both Anita and
>HISTARCH with an SHA Award of Merit for these services a few years
>back. HISTARCH has not grown less important since that ceremony, it
>has increased every year in its importance.
>
> (2) Although the article I wrote, which Fontana refers to in
>his message, was first published in 1970 (actually written in 1969),
>I am not the real "Father of Historical Archaeology." That
>designation must belong to people like J.C. Harrington, John L.
>Cotter, Kenneth Kidd,
>Art Woodward et al, et al, both in North America and elsewhere in the
>world (e.g. the founders of the SPMA in Europe). Then there is a
>second generation of ancestors - Jim Deetz, Stan South, Bunny
>Fontana, Judy Birmingham et al. Finally there is my generation.
>
> Thank you for the comment Anita, it is a great honor, but I
>was in part a student of Deetz which is why I am still so young.
>
> I will return today!
>
>Bob Schuyler
>
>At 08:18 PM 3/30/2009, you wrote:
>>Geoff,
>>
>>The source is Dr. Schuyler's book, Historical Archaeology. IMHO, Bob
>>is the father of Historical Archaeology as a discipline.
>>
>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > OK: so where did this definition come from? It must come from somewhere,
>> > have a source, someone you can cite...
>> > But that still leaves me hanging: part of what I'm doing is historical
>> > (although I'd normally call the 19th & 20th century stuff "modern"), part
>> > medieval, part Classical, & possibly some prehistoric... except that the
>> > relation between historical & prehistoric...
>> > I'm confused... just give me the source & I'll read it myself
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> > Historical Archaeology is the archaeology of the Modern World (AD [or
>> > if you prefer CE] 1400 to the Present
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Anita Cohen-Williams
>>Organic SEO and Social Media Marketing
>>http://www.mysearchguru.com
>>Twitter: @searchguru
|
