Anyone working in Historical Archaeology
needs urgently to take a look at the proposed
revisions to the Secretary's standards for various
professions. There is good and bad news. The good
news is that we no longer have something called
"general North American Archaeology," which was
both undefined and undefinable.
The bad news is that the rule-makers may
have missed an opportunity by incompletely
distinguishing the subfields of archaeology to
conform to actual practice. The proposed historical
and prehistoric standards are basically described as
mirror images with a seamless crossover between the
two, rather than distinct subdisciplines. Absence of a
separate industrial archaeology qualification is
distressing, but another matter.
"Closely related fields" for historical
archaeology should differ substantially from the list
of related fields for Prehistoric Archaeology, if they
are indeed different disciplines. By its nature,
Historical Archaeology attracts people from
backgrounds other than anthropology, especially in
light of a proliferation of academic curricula with
slightly different names. Industrial archaeology,
which may or may not be a subfield of Historical
Archaeology, attracts an even wider array of
practitioners, and employs theoretical approaches that
are quite different from either of the other two major
subfields. If Industrial Archaeology is contained
meaningfully within Historical Archaeology, which I
think is a very bad idea, then the requirements for
Historical Archaeology must be broadened
considerably.
Would someone from the Michigan Tech IA
graduate program care to comment on this issue for
our colleagues on the list? Patrick?
The list of closely related fields always will
be a bother. As new names for majors are invented,
the issue will become even more convoluted. The
matter of certifying historians in historical
archaeology was discussed during an earlier rule-
making exercise in the Federal Register, volume 49,
number 4, page 1022, Friday, January 6, 1984:
"A number of commentors took the
viewpoint that historians should be specified as
eligible to receive permits to conduct historical
archaeological work. It is recognized that not all
qualified persons practicing archaeology in the
United States possess graduate degrees in
anthropology or archaeology, and the provision was
intentionally left open for persons who have attained
qualifications through training and experience not
leading to a graduate degree in anthropology or
archaeology. Persons in this category may be
historians, or they may represent any of a number of
other educational backgrounds."
History, American Civilization, and
Industrial Archaeology are "closely related" to
Historical Archaeology. In my opinion, they are
more closely related, in content and approach if not
in theoretical tilt, than either Cultural Anthropology
or Prehistoric Archaeology. In the final analysis,
course content is more important than its label, but
regulators unfortunately are forced to deal in labels
rather than content.
|