Historians and Historical Archaeology
In response to Michael Pfeiffer's comment regarding historians and the role
archaeology can play. I am in agreement with the three "c's": confirn,
complete and correct, if have used them many times as well as the Custer
example. However I feel that this approach has its limmitations.
 
My concern is that when a historian asks "what is the use of archaeology?"
we take the three "c" approach in order to justify archaeology, but this
approach is based on the assumption that historical archaeology's role is as
some form of doccumenary substitute for historians. The three "c's" approach
falls down when there is a good documentary background, where confirming,
completing or correcting occurs on the margins of of the historical work
after all we do know that doccuments are limmited. So when there is a good
doccumenatry record archaeology gets squeezed out.
 
But of course archaeologists study the past through material culture and the
archaeological record therefore our work in studying the past is of a
similar status to that of the historians and we need not justify ourselves
in terms of the work they do but in terms of our own archaeological research
and the contribution it makes to the broader study of the past.
 
This is not to say that archaeologists shouldn't collaborate with historians
(or for that matter other related disciplines such as historical geography)
but that we should do so in a more upright position, as sure of our aims and
roles in studying the past as the historians are.
 
Iain Stuart
P.H.A.
University of Sydney