Andrea,

It seems you have misunderstood the point.  First, you are correct - human history does not exist without human behavior.  Second, do you see yourself as a historical archaeologist that uses historical records as a primary source to interpret an archaeological site. or do you use the archaeological site as the primary source to get at these "historical facts" and then examine the historical documents to determine the accuracy of the "historical facts"  in these documents.

At the same time what would happen if there is no historical documents present.  This is a case in point with archaeological studies of some slave plantations and other sites composed of minorities, where history has major biases on what it records.  Therefore, my experience has taught me that in order to interpret an archaeological site I will look at the behavior in the sites that I study and then use the historical documents as a secondary source.  Thus, I place an emphasis on the findings of a site from what someone wrote regarding that site.

In my perspective I am an archaeologist first and I place a strong emphasis on that fact.  Second, I do believe that knowing about historical documents and all that pertain to them (theory and investigation methods) are important, if you are to be a historical archaeologist.  Although, the interpretation of behavior is what makes us archaeologist.

I hope that this clears my point.

    

Jorge Garcia-Herreros, RPA
Archhaeologist
BHE Environmental, Inc.
Phone: 281.219.1200
Fax: 281.219.1211
E-mail: [log in to unmask]



>>> "Andrea G. Clark" <[log in to unmask]> 12/26/99 02:08PM >>>
I don't understand the distinction between a historical archaeology of "human
behavior" and an archaeology whose purpose is to discover and interpret
"historical facts."  Does anyone out there really believe that history exists
in the absence of human behavior?  I have yet to read a history book that does
not contemplate the who what when where why and how of people's actions in the
past.