Well Anders Andren's approach splits Europeans and I would say is far 
from dominant. If I could change history Boudicca would have 
exterminated every last Roman and you never know- the Americans might 
now be speaking French. Universities in the UK love the term historical 
archaeology for their courses but that is because it sounds 'sexy' and 
it tend s to reflect who they have their staff able to do an MA rather 
than an ideological position. Many of us in Europe are both medievalists 
and post-medievalists because that is how the subject developed and you 
could not study the latter at university below PhD level when I was a 
student.The discovery of the New World just doesn't look the same to 
Europeans (and not just the French) on the scale of importance. One 
problem of the modernity debate has been the tendency to see the Middle 
Ages as backward and full of clones. I have been in so many seminars 
over the years when the early modernists say and this was an innovation 
of the 16th century and the medievalists mutter and say well actually we 
see the same thing in the 13th. I could make a very good case for the 
Black Death being the really important turning point. However, i am 
happy to sit with 1500ish especially as I go backwards and forwards- its 
a reasonable compromise and is well established. However, our 
perspectives also change, for instance, views on the Industrial 
Revolution have seen it become a much more evolutionary and drawn out 
process than in the 1960s. However, as I know from some editing work 
this week the French Revolution is high on the list of earth shattering 
events for German historical archaeologists- wouldn't come in the top 20 
in England. However, we don't all agree and  it is a jolly good thing. 
What worries me most from this thread is that some people clearly don't 
like a bit of robust debate and find deviance troubling.


paul