Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 10 May 2012 20:01:16 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|