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]