Deagan and Thomas's definition is strictly methodological, and not wrong,
as far as that goes.  Do we/should we resist being reduced to our methods?
 
 
 
 
At 04:33 PM 2/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>This has been an interesting discussion on the global nature of
>historical archaeology . In part I certainly agree with  Brooks
>about the views of many Americans [e.g. the emphasis on "American
>Exceptionalism"] but also think we need to not lose  the basic points in
>side discussions about George III.
>
>(1) Historical Archaeology  is global by definition because its subject
>matter is global; not because researchers want to take, or not take, a
>global perspective. Chris Matthews' point is one of the best made in
>this discussion. We should be studying how global processes of world
>technology, capitalism, nationalism and ideology work out, or do not work
>out, at a specific point in time and space. This does not mean, at the
>same time, that all processes in the Modern World are global. I do not
>agree with Eric Wolf's drift on this question. The Modern World is made
>up of layers of global, regional and very local processes and structures
>all nested within each other; indeed, this fact of continuity
>(pre-modern) and localism and its interrelationship with global forces
>may be one of the most interesting aspects of our research. By the way, this
>complexity does involve specific national entities such as the United States.
>American Studies is a valid subject and approach.
>
>        (2) "Historic Ethnography" - the locally based and "thick
>description" and interpretation of microscopic case studies is our strongest
>contribution. That was my point in the article I had in HA in 1988. I never
>suggested or even hinted that such units should be studied as isolates.
>An attempt to say I did advocate such "isolationism" is an absolute
>misreading of my statements; indeed, even the founders of SHA in 1967 in
>Dallas issued a clear and correct statement on this issue. I do think that
>such detailed studies of how culture works in the Modern World - on all
>levels- will be our strongest contribution, at least, until we have
>enough such "historic ethnographies" to move on to regional syntheses
>and interpretations that are fundamentally based on archaeological data.
>Of course such studies should always be done within both a local and
>global perspective.
>
>        The major problem is not "either-or" but rather what theoretical
>approach or model will best serve us in trying to understanding how local
>case studies reflect all the various levels of socio -cultural interaction
>(or lack of interaction). I opt for cultural evolutionary theory.
>
>        (3) Clearly defining our field.
>
>                Ironically the other major problem about Historical
>Archaeology is that it is frequently definited with too broad a brush. We
>must take a global perspective - which in no way slights local
>perspectives - but we must not try to define historical  as the archaeology
>of history. When our field is defined as a branch of general archaeological
>scholarship that studies the past by combining archaeological and
>documentary data [as Kathy Deagan and many others do] this involves a major
>intellectual and political error. There are many many archaeologies  that
>fall equally under such a definition (e.g. Egyptology, , Maya Archaeology,
>Sumerology, Classical Archaeology,pre -Ming Chinese Archaeology , etc. etc.)
>and there are even some groups of researchers who are not archaeologists
>(e.g. some architectural historians) who use such a combined approach to
>the past. Such a definition defines our field out of existence and puts
>it into direct political competition with much more successful disciplines
>already well established in the public eye. When Deagan uses such a
>definition and then David H. Thomas copies it and puts it into one of the
>most popular text books used in North America it becomes much more than
>just a semantic problem.
>
>        Historical Archaeology is a branch of general archaeology  which
>studies the Modern World (ca. AD 1400 to the present). It has a quite
>distinct and quite important subject matter and we should be clear when
>we talk about our disicpline that we understand our own field.
>On one hand we are being too provincial and at the same time so
>broad as to define ourselves out of existence. I am not going to go into a
>discussion here of how the Modern World is set off from traditional
>civilization and time periods (be it Rome, or Sung China or even Medieval
>Europe) but I believe it is so differentiated in both historical and
>cultural evolutionary terms.
>
>
>        Historical archaeologists  have realized their field is global in
>scope but set off in time and history since the inception of the field.
>As I mentioned there was a good discussion at the Conference in 1967 in
>Dallas (see Volume 1  Number 1  of HA) and in the early 1970s  I created a
>"Global" Section in the SHA Newsletter to highlight work outside of North
>America and Western Europe.
>
>        Hopefully any introductory booklets on the field will also make
>these two points even if they focus on data drawn from North America.
>
>        Finally, if you want to advance the international nature of
>Historical  you can do so by joining (assuming you are a North
>American) the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology  [I have been a member
>since 1967], the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology  [I am a
>Life Founding member], subscribing to the South African Newsletter
>(Cross-Mends) and by supporting the appropriate Underwater and Industrial
>groups. Also, if you are outside of North America, or work outside of that
>continent, Ron Michael is actively looking for submissions from Europe,
>Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania [sorry - also the West Indies].
>
>
>                                Bob Schuyler
>
>         By the way Alasdair, John . Cotter, as you probably know, just
>passed away. He held the Purple Heart from being wounded at Normandy.
>This reminds me - America had to save you in 1918 [the French helped a
>little bit], again in 1942, had to pull our out of the Suez Canal in the
>1960s and was about to save you from Argentina when Buenos Aires realized
>the Falklands were worthless. Thank God Victoria died in 1901 and did not
>live to see such events.*
>
>
>        [* for some Americans - the above final remark is a joke.]
>