Dr Schuyler- Could you repost that link?
We can not cover everything on HISTARCH, nor is that the function of our list. There are exceptions such as the syphilis observations in the original message. Not too long ago I informed the HISTARCH membership of a very interesting article in a major historical journal about the suggested African origins of rice agriculture in the Carolinian region. This article was of great interest to many historical archaeologists; however, I did not list or talk about the many other articles in that issue of the journal which although interesting were not directly tied into our field.
Carl Steen
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Schuyler <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 9:32 pm
Subject: Final Comments and Two Suggested Books
FINAL COMMENTS:
I do not think this discussion, and its disagreements, are meant to be offensive;indeed, how we define our field will determine almost everything else about our field both in regard to research and its potential contribution to general scholarship. Also, in regard to method and theory that is not what we are primarily talking about. Both methods and theoretical models cross-cut all of archaeology (prehistoric and historic periods). We are talking about is subject matter and only indirectly how different theoretical perspectives influence our definitions.
We do recognize that some Europeans who are involved in different historic periods have a perspective different from those not so involved, especially medieval archaeologists since the European Middle Ages is, in part, directly ancestral to the Modern World. But this is not contrasted with an "American" perspective. Again, most of the world in AD 1400 or 1500 or even 1600 was prehistoric and not yet involved in the Modern World system.
Specific Issue:
We can not cover everything on HISTARCH, nor is that the function of our list. There are exceptions such as the syphilis observations in the original message. Not too long ago I informed the HISTARCH membership of a very interesting article in a major historical journal about the suggested African origins of rice agriculture in the Carolinian region. This article was of great interest to many historical archaeologists; however, I did not list or talk about the many other articles in that issue of the journal which although interesting were not directly tied into our field.
TWO BOOKS:
For those of you interested in the European view of this discussion you can not do better than to read Anders Andren's book. It is a tour de force but, in my opinion, going down a dead end road in what he is advocating(see my review in American Anthropologist). Andren goes a spectacular job of finding the overlaps (actually parallels) between most of the archaeologies of history.
If you want another book directly related to our field do take a look at:
John Darwin (a historian)
2008 AFTER TAMERLANE: THE GOBAL HISTORY OF EMPIRE SINCE 1405.
Bloomsbury Press, NY
Although it deals with one institutional aspect of the Modern World, it is a wonderful discussion.
Bob Schuyler
At 04:30 PM 12/14/2010, you wrote:
>I am not a great believer in the concept of modernity- it has been used
>for every century since the 10th at least by someone. However, there are
>major changes not least the impact of the Black Death, Reformation and
>Counter Reformation, and a war in the early 17th century which killed a
>third of the population over much of Germany. There also major changes
>in the archaeological record- urban build-up and cess pit building etc
>depending where you are. In decades of excavation and post-ex I can't
>think of a single 15th century context - well not one I could separate
>from the 16th century any way. Yes there is no exact point- I think I
>wrote much quoted paper on this in the 1990s SPMA Age of Transition
>volume but that is not to say we should abandon periods just because we
>can't define them exactly. Being a medievalist and a post-medievalist
>one important point of separation is that I can read medieval and c16
>documents in Latin without relying on a tame historian often with no
>concept of landscape, space or material culture. I don't expect every
>archaeologist to be able to do that anymore than i would all
>archaeologists to be excavators (done that too and now too rheumatic).
>The fact is we have to specialise to get above a certain level of
>understanding. On site you have to be capable of digging and recording
>anything though few people are as adept at interpreting the Roman as
>they are the medieval never mind post-medieval. The cut off points are
>often arbitrary but I believe period knowledge is important and I see in
>the UK increasing numbers of well excavated and presented sites ruined
>by interpretive chapters that read like bad undergraduate essays. No one
>reads anymore- clearly. if I remember correctly Geoff- you have a
>specialism in stratigraphy and recording and its evolution - well any
>specialism is a good thing if only to remind us how ignorant we are of
>the subject as a whole.
>
>To badly paraphrase Ranke - There are periods and though they are all
>equal in the eyes of God we are only human.
>
>
>paul
>
>
>On 14/12/2010 20:35, geoff carver 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.
> >
|