While I agree wholeheartedly with those who've stated that we as
historical archaeologists wear two hats, the fact of the matter is
that we can't do it all. It's often hard enough just to find the time to
read through Historical Archaeology. Ideally, historical
archaeology should be inter-disciplinary (or at worst, multi-
disciplinary), with constant interaction between archaeologist and
historian. On the one hand, the archaeologist should have at least
a working knowledge of the local/regional history, folklore,
architecture, etc.; on the other, the historian should be aware of the
archaeologist's information needs while ferreting out and expanding
on the site-specific and broader contextual data for the study in
question. Between them, they should be able to draw on the larger
themes of social, economic, and cultural history, material culture
theory, and anthropology, and at the end the product should
represent a synergy of their efforts.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but, as others on this thread
have asked: does this always happen? The answer, unfortunately,
is a resounding no. So we frequently end up with a partially
digested report--sporting a partially synthesized synthesis--that
archaeologists may find useful for its field or artifact data.
Can we do better? Yes. Have we done better? Yes. Then why is
our work usually ignored by historians, when we [usually/often] are
so adept at taking their ideas and themes and applying it to our
own work? Maybe we're just not in their faces often enough. How
many of us interact with professional historians? Do we go to their
conferences? Do they come to ours? Much of our work is CRM-
based, so I have to wonder if your average academic historian even
knows where to go to find our reports.
I'll stop venting now, but look forward to seeing more on this
subject.
Rick Affleck
|