This discussion is fascinating in that I am amazed at the overly narrow and
outdated concepts and the discussion concerning which is the most important
aspect of information recovery and Historic Archaeology. Perhaps there is some
truth to the view held by some that Historic Archaeologists are neither
Historians nor Archaeologists.
There is no single thing, tool, or technique which is more important than any
other-be it artifact, stratigraphy ceramics, context, or whatever. The entire
place, including it's location, is an artifact. An artifact being something
which is the product of human behavior. Modern archaeology, including the
Historic variety, is concerned with people and their behavior. We want to know
who, what, where, when, how, and why the people occupying a place did what they
did. Archaeology is not about artifacts, or stratigraphy, or ceramics. These are
all tools we use to answer the basic questions about human behavior posed above.
If the artifact, stratigraphy, ceramics are (or is) the primary interest then we
are no better, or farther along, than the Antiquarians of the last century. This
statement is not a slap at those who specialize in certain fields like
stratigraphy or ceramics or faunal remains. While they are very important their
work is not the final endeavor. It is only one piece of the behavior we are
trying to discern. Historic Archaeologist do archaeology of the Historic Period,
whenever that is where you are, and have an advantage (or disadvantage) of
having access to some tools Prehistoric Archaeologist do not have. Most notably
written material. Whether it be Historic or Prehistoric the focus is (or should
be) the same-people and their behavior.
Now before the folks on the list jump all over me please just read what I said
and mull it over before the flames begin. I also need to state that my opinions
are solely my own and in NO WAY represent those of my employer.
Jim Chase
|