>
> (I'm replying to the list, since Scott posted here as well.) Scott,
>     Please leave the heavy-handness to me. Kelly was not degrading the
> prehistorian, just pointing out the incongruity of it all, and the fact that
> she wanted a historical archaeologist.
{snip}
 
> course, ASU managed to hire a person with a speciality in Iranian archaeology.
>   The next time you want to flame someone's note, please take it off-list (or
> back channel, or lateral, or whatever term you want to use).
>
> Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
 
We appear to use somewhat different criteria for flames... In any
case, didn't mean to cause offence, but I must remain unrepentant
on this one. Most of the post wasn't on fitness for the job, but
on the idea that USC wasn't any place for an African prehistorian
and that the demand for an historical archaeologist should
over-ride anything else. It would indeed be curious if
Departments were restricted to pre-existing specializations when
hiring -- and is there any other reason that I'm missing for
eliminating the possibility of having an African prehistorian at
ASU? With all due respect, the fact that there'a a lot of
historical archaeology done in that area doesn't cut it; in that
case, Europe wouldn't have any prehistorians.
 
I don't have the ad for the position in front of me, but it was
sufficiently open that I -- an Africanist with some historical
archaeological experience in Central Africa, but primarily a
prehistorian -- applied for it. Got my 'No, thanks' letter from
Leland Ferguson last night as a matter of fact. Doesn't bother
me, because Bowdoin College in Maine has been sufficiently daring
to hire me as an Africanist at just about the same time as the
USC job was decided. (An Africanist on the Maine coast; now
there's incongruity for you...)(AFAIK, the job was fairly
tendered and fairly won -- so why bring up names on the Internet?
 
Best,
 
Scott MacEachern