The Pompeii post has sparked more discussion than virtually anything else posted in Histarch in the past few months. That seems to indicate to me that it is a relevant post.
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert L. Schuyler" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Dec 14, 2010 2:53 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Pompeii skeletons reveal secrets of Roman family life
>
>There is some confusion here. Historical Archaeology is, of course, a
>part of general archaeology. So, topical interests (e.g. gender, class,
>"identity", urbanism, and so on) are of equal interest to our field as
>they are to all specializations in general archaeology. Of course we
>interact with colleagues from other specializations when discussing or
>studying such topics.The definition I put forth is not an "American"
>definition. It is a definition based on cultural evolution which is
>global. Post-Medieval Archaeology is an integral part of our
>specialization, for example, but Etruscan archaeology is not.
>
>The specific issue here is that HISTARCH is a discussion group for
>historical archaeologists, not other archaeologies of history. The
>syphilis issue is a valid exception but the problem is that there are
>hundreds of topics that may interest us as general archaeologists (or
>anthropologists or historians) but HISTACH is not the place to discuss
>them; indeed, there is usually a much better discussion list available.
>I recall the attempt to discuss the so-called
>Davidian tunnel under Jerusalem which the moderator, quite correctly,
>stopped.
>
>Enough said on this topic for me.
>
>Bob Schuyler
>
>On 12/14/2010 2:18 PM, Candace Ehringer wrote:
>> Ditto! It's definitely relevant to historical archaeology of the New World.
>> And as someone who only subscribes to this list, I welcome notification of
>> interesting findings.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Meredith Linn<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I agree, and new insights about the history of syphilis are certainly
>>> relevant to the archaeology of the modern world.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Lyle E. Browning"<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sender: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:02:03
>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Pompeii skeletons reveal secrets of Roman family life
>>>
>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>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]
|