Bob, 
 
On your last note I sometimes kid my prehistorical colleagues that at least 
 we have documents to validate our archaeology and that with their 
conclusions  they can just make things up because they don't have the documents to 
contradict  them ; )
 
 
In a message dated 5/10/2012 9:46:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

No  debate. Just that as a field we agreed on "historical 
archaeology"   (name of society, journal, first books, etc.) and so 
usually when people  say "historic" archaeology it is a signal they 
are new to the field and  likely prehistorians. It then usually 
follows that they think Historical  Archaeology is the archaeology of 
history or just an extension (e.g. North  America) of prehistory.

Back in 1969 I endorsed two terms - historical  archaeology (for the 
archaeology of history) and historic sites  archaeology (J.C. 
Harrington's term) (for the archaeology of the Modern  World AD 1400 
to the Present) but that failed when "historical  archaeology" crowded 
out the second term.

We should now be  consistent and always say "Historical Archaeology" 
and understand it means  the archaeology of the Modern World. That is 
our field, our subject, and  our area within general scholarship. It 
happens to be a very important  subject.

There are many "archaeologies of history" (e.g. Egyptology,  Classical 
Archaeology, Chinese Archaeology, Maya (Classic) Archaeology)  but 
they have little to do with each other except on a methodological  
level and little if anything to do with our field. Scholars in such  
fields do not need us to champion their subjects or to make our field  
a footnote to their interests. It should also be kept in mind that 
our  field is still frowned on by many of our general colleagues 
either because  they think studying the recent past is stupid or 
because, more recently,  they resent the success of Historical Archaeology.

Bob  Schuyler



At 07:35 AM 5/10/2012, you wrote:
>Dr Schuyler-  maybe you can update all the young folks on the "raging" 
debat=
>e over  "historic" vs "historical" that went on back in the 1960s. I doubt 
 t=
>he topic gets much coverage in grad schools these  days.
>
>
>Carl  Steen
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Robert L. Schuyler <[log in to unmask]>
>To: HISTARCH  <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wed, May 9, 2012 11:08  pm
>Subject: Re: Introductions
>
>
>NO - over 90 means  semi-divine or at least blessed by God. We will=20
>have to congratulate  Ed Jelks on September 10th.
>
>
>
>At 05:15 PM  5/9/2012, you wrote:
> >And the only "paleolithic" archaeologists are  those over 90, amongst
> >whom I will be on 10 September.
>  >
> >ebj
> >
> >On 5/9/2012 10:27 AM, Robert L.  Schuyler wrote:
> > > GOOD. The only "historic" archaeologists are  those over 70 years old.
> > >
> > > RLS
> >  >
>
>=20