Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 25 Apr 1995 13:03:43 CDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Karl Steinem and others suggest there is no difference between
prehistoric archeology and historical archeology other than us histarchs
have documents. Oh, and this is a dramatic difference because of the
questions we can ask. If he does find his Woodland to historic site,
and practically all of the sites in my part of Arkansas fit that
sequence, he will find that those historic folks didn't "adapt" at all
to that landscape except in the most simplistic sense. Historic folks,
as western civilization, tends to effect dramatic transformations in the
natural world as they/we turn "natural" into "cultural" with our
powerful technology and accompanying introduced plants and animals. So
why should histarchs may more than a little (and necessary) attention to
"adaptation", when we can actually get at sophisticated notions of
culture and mentalite and whatever you want. "Post-processual" actually
is possible with historical archy, and a lot more fun. Playing with
documents (and photos and memories and standing structures and whatever
else we can find) lets us look at the classic cultural anthro topics of
social relations and belief systems, even while we continue to play in
the dirt. I personally find a lot more reward in talking with straight
cultural anthros rather than prehistoric archeologists, with apologies t
o my colleagues in the Ark. Archeological Survey who are perfectly aware
that my job as historical archeologist with the Survey also means I have
to commit a remarkable amount of prehistoric work. Bye for now.
Leslie C. Stewart-Abernathy
Arkansas Archeological Survey
Arkansas Tech University
Russellville, AR
|
|
|