Actually, there are many people who contributed to our current  understanding 
of the field of historical archaeology. Let us not forget Rick  Sprague, John 
Goggin, Rex Gerald, or many of the first people who formed  together at the 
beginning of the Society for Historical Archaeology. Back in the  post war 
1950s and '60s, no one had even debated whether to call it "historic"  or 
"historical" archaeology or whether we were to come from history or  anthropology. 
Those were scholarly battles for another time. But just because  Bob Schuyler 
settled on historical archaeology does not mean the  evolution of what we embrace 
in method and theory stopped at some point in the  past. The truth be told, 
people over age 60 who have been in this business  for a while probably learned 
entirely different field methodologies than  the younger generations. Just 
look at the shift from architecture to artifacts  in that time. And while some 
have told me offline in the past few days that  "these issues have already been 
decided" and that "further discussion is  pointless," no issues have truly 
been decided by the rest of us and further  discussion will be fruitful.
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc. 
 
 
In a message dated 3/31/2009 12:29:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Well,  sorry: I'd never heard of this; maybe self-proclaimed, &  unquestioned
within the US, but that's not what we were taught in Canada,  & that's not
the view here in Europe... especially since what is now  called "historical
archaeology" (i.e. doing archaeology & comparing the  results with historical
documents) has a history of at least 150 years, and  I don't think even Bob
is that old...

-----Original  Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On  Behalf Of Anita
Cohen-Williams
Sent: March 31, 2009 02:18
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Historical  Archaeology

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


**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220439616x1201372437/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)