Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 5 Oct 1995 07:56:48 PDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dale,
You raise an old topic that probably needs dusting off
and re-playing once in a while for all those who have
not heard the record before. Students of historic
archaeology undoubtedly have read the articles by
Clyde Dollar and others, but students of Classical
Arch and Prehistoric fields may not.
The approach, as Dan Mourer pointed out, differs
from the fields of history and anthropology. I have
had training in public history with social history
and archival records, as well as anthropology with
a thesis in hisotric archaeology. Thus, I can attest
at the differences in approach. Both look at broad
patterns, but one quantifies public records statistics
and the other quantifies things in underground contexts.
The Research Designs differ greatly, as have thinking
on the resulting data.
I have also seen local pot-hunters and bottle hunters
obtain history degrees and try to make up the difference
in archaeology by reading Stan South and trying to make
up data charts to appear as though they were up to snuff.
Historians doing archaeology tend to discard small broken
artifacts in favor of whole objects and architectural
interpretatin, but not all and there are some excellent
historians with excellent traning and product in
archaeology.
But either way, the historic archaeologist needs course work
at the graduate level in both historical method and
the anthropological apporach to archaeology.
Ron May
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|