Is it, Scott?  By whom?  And in all of Europe?  I think Cambridge,
Ljubljana, Goteborg, possibly Berlin would have something to say about
this.  Anyone else out there who feels miffed at being placed No 2 to
Sheffield?
 
I could sing the praises of Durham and I would certainly recommend it to a
prospective research student over Sheffield but would risk living up to my
signature.  In my view, there is no one 'top' research department in the
country -- and that is one of the strengths of our system, namely that we
have diversity and choice between departments of different character that
can't easily be ranked on a league table.   (It would overload people's
email accounts to list the weaknesses.)
 
I sense the danger of getting into a fruitless 'our place is better than
their place' debate here, but I can't let this go unchallenged.  Perhaps a
more fruitful debate would be to talk about the merits and demerits of the
academic systems of different countries and where historical archaeology
fits in to these.
 
 
Dr Matthew H Johnson           Windy Matt was a Texas man -
Dept of Archaeology            Well, he could rope, you bet.
University of Durham           He swore the beast he couldn't tie -
South Road                     Well, he hadn't found him yet...
Durham DH1 3LE
U.K.
Tel 0191 374 4755
Fax 0191 374 3619
 
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Scott Crull wrote:
 
> Perhaps Durham is good, as I know of an American (from Sheffield Univ.) which
> also goes there, but Sheffield is still considered the #1 Archaeological
> RESEARCH facility in Europe.
>
>
> Scott
>