As the number of people in the UK I could have an intelligent
conversation with about the archaeology of the Netherlands can probably
be measured on one hand I would not make any claims for internationalism
in the UK (We have the Channel after all despite that new fangled
tunnel). Some of the most parochial archaeologists I know are those who
go off to other countries usually sunny and with cheap wine if they from
the UK. Internationalism (sorry i can't bring myself to use the g..
word) is I would say being aware of relevant work in other countries
than the one you are studying at that precise moment.
 
It is surely on of the signs of a maturing
discipline that it can accommodate different perspectives. There can
never be one definition of what we do because none of us are driven by
quite the same interests, perspective or ideology. We all study the past
but its like saying we are all human beings- it doesn't tell you very
much. The 'modern' definition is one I quite like though I don't believe
in the wider concept of modernity as modernization theory and would
never call the c16 capitalist without a proto- in front. There are deep
philosophical divides within historical archaeology eg between social
theory and cultural history, between determinists and non-determinists,
between those who like working on the leaves and those who prefer to
study forests. While other Brits and Europeans have very different views
to my own i would argue that I cannot but see the world from a European
perspective. I certainly come from a very different intellectual
tradition to US anthro-trained archaeologists. Marc Bloch's _French
Rural History_ and Eric Hobsbawn's _Bandits_ were the books that blew my
mind as  a youngster (a good dose of Durkheim and non-vulgar marxism).
Many of the central debates have been going on for a century or more in
cognate disciplines and are not resolved. It is better to define,
acknowledge and debate those differences than try to create a
textureless porridge of shared ideology of the lowest common
denominator.
 
paul courtney
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Alasdair Brooks
<[log in to unmask]> w
 
 
 
 
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Mary Ellin
D'Agostino <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Hmmm.  I have a question regarding internationalism (or whatever you want
>to call it).  Alasdair's posts imply that Historical/Post-Medieval
>archaeologists (presumably from the UK) have an international or global
>focus.  Could someone give some examples?  Would an "international" focus
>on Europe be substantially different from a North American focus if one
>looks at the geographic territory covered?  For example, if I am on the
>West Coast of the US and study something on the East Coast, does this count
>"less" than a scholar in the Netherlands studying a nearby town that
>happens to be across the border in Germany?  And what happens if we take a
>look at which cultural groups scholars from different venues look at?  Do
>we lump archaeologists focusing on Native people's interactions with one or
>more European (or Euro-American) groups as not having an "international"
>focus?
>
>Might I suggest that lumping all of North America and all academic study
>done on the cultures of such a large and diverse area as problematic?  I
>think that what the complaint is *really* about is that US Historical
>Archaeologists for the most part study only Anglo-colonial or (white)
>"American" culture in local contexts.  While that proposition may have been
>true in the past, I do not think it is true of the current state of the
>field.  We do need to broaden our perspectives from the local to the
>regional and cross-regional and to produce more integrative and synthetic
>works in order to make the discipline of greater relevance to the public
>and other academic disciplines.
>
>
>
>Mary Ellin D'Agostino
>[log in to unmask]
 
Paul Courtney
Leicester UK