Meli,

There are still AH folks who view archaeology as the Dark Side and archaeologists who view AH folks the same way, but those are diminishing in numbers. My training was in the UK where someone aptly said that archaeology began beneath the stork nest on top of the chimney pot and continued down to the gravel bar on the bank of the Thames 30 feet below street levels (bearing in mind that stork nests are not common in London but they were illustrating a point). At least here in VA, there was a very wide chasm. We can still quite merrily record a building without recording the archaeological component, but at least the 106 folks are pointing the error of their ways in that one.

When one can tie building episodes and repair episodes to archaeological materials, perceived differences between the two professions become moot. One colleague said only half in jest that he could not "deal with a standing structure until it became a pile of rubble".

But, again, we're a product of our training and how many Universities demand architectural history courses (beyond perhaps intro level) that tie the two together?

I'm also looking at the day when there really is a national computerized system in place and imagining the headaches that could be avoided with a single unified system that will at least get one to the site/structure in question whereas it's only done in a few states now.

Lyle Browning



On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Melissa Diamanti wrote:

> Lyle,As an archaeologist who shared an office with an architectural historian during my formative years, I ALWAYS consider the standing historic structures relating to a site. How can anyone ignore an artifact/feature that big and obvious?  It can tell you so much - site function, use of space, age, etc!  As for the other side of the coin, I know a lot of architectural historians totally ignore archaeology, or stick in a rote sentence about there being a potential (unexplored) for archaeological resources. They suffer from very narrow training, never having been taught about archaeology.
> 
> None of the states I've worked in have used the same system for both.  In cases of ruins, there has been some debate on whether to record it as only an archaeological site, only a standing historic resource, or both (I vote for both).
> In Pennsylvania, I have worked in counties where there are many more historic structures recorded than historic sites, so giving them all site numbers may overburden the site numbering system.  Also, I feel that you cannot ASSUME there are intact archaeological resources associated with every building more than 50 years old.  I've dug in the yards of some and found nothing more interesting than flower beds and buried utility lines. Modern trash disposal, especially in urban settings, greatly cuts down on-site artifact deposition.
> As you can tell, I have mixed feelings about the notion of combining the two into one system. But maybe it would force each field to quit ignoring the other.
> Meli Diamanti
> --- On Mon, 8/15/11, Lyle E. Browning <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> From: Lyle E. Browning <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Archaeology & Architectural History
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Monday, August 15, 2011, 5:17 PM
> 
> Archaeologists use the trinomial system to record archaeologists. Architectural historians use something else, at least here in VA.
> 
> Are there states that have one numbering system for everything? We have had archaeologists who can't deal with buildings and buildings are often recorded with no regard for the archaeological sites around them, although this is waning, thankfully.
> 
> But, with an idea towards looking to the totally computerized future and recognizing that architectural sites also have archaeological components, are there states who've taken the jump and if so how?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Lyle Browning, RPA