Anita
 
Unfortunately I disagree that the access to records and live people
really sets HA apart.  It gives you a distinct advantage an extra step
forward but it really does not make you different.  I had a couple of
courses from Chuck Fairbanks and many classes with people who were
primarily interested in HA.  We all generally saw the system as a
continuum.  My ideal site would be a multi-occupation that goes from
Woodland through 19th. century (hopefully with a few gaps).  It would be
a lot of fun to look at changing adaptation patterns etc.  One part of the
work would include written records, the other none.  Big deal here, it is
the problems that we address that drive our work and inquiry.  HA can
address problems that PA cannot.  This is what makes it fun.
 
Karl Steinen
 
 
On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, Anita Cohen-Williams wrote:
 
> Ah, but Karl, you seem to have missed a point in comparing prehistoric and
> historic archaeology. HA doesn't just use site data. We also use written
> documents. Our methods of excavation might be similar, but we have the added
> bonus of being able to consult what people have written about our sites,
> either the primary or secondary sources. Prehistorians deal with people before
> the advent of a written language. This is what sets us apart.
>
> Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
> Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
> PHONE: (602) 965-4579              FAX: (602) 965-9169
> INTERNET: [log in to unmask]  Owner: HISTARCH, SPANBORD
>