Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:36:57 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
<any>:[log in to unmask]
Skip Stewart-Abernathy writes that Karl Steinen and others suggest that
there is no difference between prehistoric and historic archaeology.
As, I guess, one of the others, I don't think this is quite correct.
What I (and I think some of the others) are saying is that, although
there are differences, we remain, at the basic level, archaeologists.
Yes, there are differences in the way sites are excavated and in the
theoretical perspective we use to interpret the material AND
documentary record. But that is true even among "prehistorians"
and "historians". If I were a betting man (but I'm neither), I
would wager that you might find as many differences within each
group than between it. Anyway, I appreciate all of the responses
that came both directly to me and to the list; they have made
me think about such topics in a new way.
Dorothy Humpf
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
|
|
|