The cut off date is certainly not AD 1492, nor 1453, nor 1415. All
such dates are arbitrary points. [For Germany, I suppose, it would be
the 1870s or perhaps 1946 - this is joke by the way.] Between Ad 1400
and 1600 a set of cultural processes, the materialization of some of
these you mention below, appeared across a broad band of Old World
civilizations ranging from Europe and the Mediterranean World,
through the Islamic World to the Far East that set the stage that
made the Modern World possible. During this period Western Europe
combined these elements more successfully and staged what a recent
historian called a geographical "Break Out" which led it in the
following period (1600 to 1800) to the creation for the first time in
human history of an interrelated and continuously interactive Modern
World. In the following period (1800 to the present) European
civilization came to dominate this global system and it has only been
in the last few decades that an alternative system has perhaps dimly appeared.
That is what we as historical archaeologists are studying, not the
Roman Empire, or the Han Dynasty, or the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, or
Classic Mayan civilization. And, No this does not mean we are
disinterested in these earlier, pre-modern types of civilizations. It
also does not mean we are precluded from making comparative studies
between the modern and the pre-modern worlds. Not only do the roots
of the Modern World lay in the pre-modren world but a key function
for comparative studies is to try to understand the differences
between these systems. For such comparisons, however, we will turn
not to ourselves but to our colleagues in this other specializations.
The basic concept behind this model of human history is not basically
an historic model (e.g. specific, historic periods). It is a cultural
evolutionary model. Just as much earlier when the Neolithic
transformation took place it occurred independently in different
areas of the world at different points in time. This pattern is true
of all cultural evolutionary transformations although with the Modern
World there is much more of an interrelatedness. In AD 1550, for
example, most of the world was still pre-modern;indeed, large areas
of the globe were from a cultural evolutionary perspective still
prehistoric, areas occupied by hunter gatherers or
agricultual-pastoral societies not yet interacting with the expanding
modern world system. One of the purposes of Historical Archaeology,
besides studying the core(s) of the system itself, is also to study
how this system expanded globally to finally incorporate all
societies, all cultures, all civilizations, finally all of humanity
into one permanent interacting system.
Bob Schuyler
At 03:35 PM 12/14/2010, you wrote:
>Are you now going to decide who is or who is not an historical
>archaeologist? Here in Germany I'm told I'm not an archaeologist because my
>training did not include Latin. I tell many of my colleagues they're not
>archaeologists because they can't use a theodolite, write a soil description
>or draw a Harris Matrix. I'm an historical archaeologist when I work in
>urban contexts, which can and do date from WW2 to Roman cellars, all within
>a single site. Am I supposed to excavate part of the site to some random
>cut-off date of 1492 that has absolutely no relevance here, then give the
>excavation over to someone else to do the earlier bits?
>The definition you put over is an American definition. Period. Sorry. Here
>there is no qualitative change after 1400. If "The Modern Period is set off
>qualitatively from the rest of human history and prehistory," what is the
>defining factor? Moveable type? The Protestant Reformation? The Viking
>voyages to the New World? Marco Polo? Columbus?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>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.
|