I have been reading with interest the debate and concerns
about the separation or lack thereof of various subfields of
archeology, eg. historical and prehistorical.
I see many parallels between that debate and others
that occur among various "expert" groups in biology,
environmental sciences, medicine, and on and on. But, years
and experiences have led me to suspect that all human
endeavors, including those in the sciences, are little more
that an endless series of overlapping circles. One can not
move far along the circumference of any given circle before
intersecting one or more other circles of other endeavors.
No field and no circle is unto itself. None
are uniquely distinct from the others. To try to make them
so seem to be of great academic interest, but little
functional utility. Allow me to offer but one example.
For over 25 years I have been a "professional toxicologist"
and am board certified as such. During the last several
years, I have enjoyed as a hobby pursuing antiques, and more
recently engaging in an archeological study of an early home
and tanning area. For years I viewed my profession in
toxicology as separate from my interests in old stuff. Then
recently, I ask a very well respected professional
historical archeologist to "peer" review my first manuscript
in archeology.
He kindly agreed to help, but only if I would in turn help
him. It seems he found high levels of potentially toxic
heavy metals in biological specimens removed from a very
early historical archeological site. Instantly, the fields
of toxicology, historical archeology, history, nuclear metal
analyses, and medicine merged.
My message to students and younger professionals would be to
pursue that which is interesting and not be to concerned
about what others call it.
|
