I agree with Lyle on this on both his first and last points!
nan rothschild
Quoting "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Analytical information coming from any source, especially one as
> brief as the post in question, is germane to what we do in our
> "archaeology", however defined. Those who may not subscribe to other
> mail lists would not be the beneficiaries of information that is
> entirely on point as to what might be applied to our "archaeology".
> It's not the ethnic origin of whose skeleton we analyze, nor who
> pooped in a privy, but what that information can tell us in our own
> world that transcends the strict constructionist viewpoint. Assuming
> anyone on this list has ever excavated an historic period cemetery
> or privy.
>
> Sorry, but I think it's relevant and definitely within the realm of
> an apt notification. Of course, we will spend more time debating
> this than actually doing something productive, as usual;))
>
> Lyle Browning
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Robert L. Schuyler wrote:
>
>> There are many "archaeologies of history" and many of them
>> (Egyptology, Maya Archaeology, Classical Archaeology, Chinese
>> Dynastic Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, etc. etc.) have little
>> if anything to do with each other.
>> Historical Archaeology is the archaeology of the Modern World (AD
>> [C.E.] 1400 up through the 20th Century) and this definition and
>> the subject of the discipline are the product of global cultural
>> evolution. The Modern Period is set off qualitatively from the rest
>> of human history and prehistory.
>>
>> We used the name and title first and consistently, so it belong to us.
>>
>> A definition base only on methodology (the present of written
>> sources of some type) does not say very much.
>>
>> The message on Pompeii was out of place on HISTARCH although I
>> found it quite interesting and had not heard of the recent findings.
>>
>> Bob Schuyler
>>
>> On 12/14/2010 12:57 PM, Jack Hunter wrote:
>>> Question please: The Romans were a literate people. We have a wealth of
>>> written knowledge from that time period. Ergo, in the "sensu latu"
>>> interpretation (as opposed to the "sensu stricto" ) they were an historic
>>> people. Is there an arbitrary cutoff to history here that transcends time
>>> and place? I for one found the referred article interesting, although
>>> given the focus of this forum's interests, I see it as informational and
>>> not necessarily kicking off a sustained thread of conversation. Hard to
>>> not use words with Latin roots. Just wondering...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anita
>>> Cohen-Williams
>>> <[log in to unmask] To
>>> M> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent by: cc
>>> HISTORICAL
>>> ARCHAEOLOGY Subject
>>> <[log in to unmask] Re: Pompeii skeletons reveal
>>> > secrets of Roman family life
>>>
>>>
>>> 12/14/2010 09:00
>>> AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>> HISTORICAL
>>> ARCHAEOLOGY
>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ahem, HISTARCH is for Historical Archaeology, not Classical. Let us
>>> try to keep on topic, please.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anita Cohen-Williams
>>> Social Media Marketing and Management
>>> http://mysearchguru.com
>>> http://twitter.com/searchguru
>>> Listowner of Histarch and Sub-Arch
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert L. Schuyler
>> University of Pennsylvania Museum
>> 3260 South Street
>> Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
>>
>> Tel: (215) 898-6965
>> Fax: (215) 898-0657
>> [log in to unmask]
>
>
Nan A. Rothschild
Director of Museum Studies
Columbia University
212 854-4977
Research Professor
Barnard College
212 854-4315
|
