Diane,
    I did not mean to imply that you stated that archaeologists only use material culture to form the basis of their interpretations.  I apologize if I misrepresented your remarks.  Rather, I intended to highlight the fact that historians needn't only use documents, that archaeologists could be historians as well as anthropologists, in light of the ongoing debate.
    In the same vein I do question your comment that "using Archeology to check the historic record is not the intent.  Using the recorded data to augment the interpretation of the material culture is the point."  The intent for whom?  The issue has been raised previously that historic documents are often misleading and incomplete.  I believe that using archaeology to advance our knowledge of history is one of the goals for many archaeologists, although certainly not the only one.  Look at the work that has been done at the Custer Battle Field,
reinterpreting our understanding of how "Custer's Last Stand" went down.  That's just one example, I'm sure that there are many others.
    But even if archaeologists are more focused on using the historic record to provide insight into the material culture (and I suspect you are correct and this is predominantly the case, particularly in the CRM field), our work has a secondary impact outside of our own field (or at least we hope that it does).  Earlier debates have centered on the fact that historians haven't used our findings enough.  Our findings do have relevance to other (non-anthropological) disciplines.  Earlier discussions have centered on how we can do a better job of
showing this relevance to "outsiders" in other fields and also to the public.  Perhaps broadening our understanding of how we can apply our resources is a way to start.

Andrea Clark


Diane Dismukes wrote:

> Of course that is a human behavior, and if you want to study the life of an accountant, a particularistic endeavor, then you are on track. However since Anthropology studies cultures we would use this data set to look at the individuals he is making marks about. Andrea missed my point about that one - I did not say archeologists use only material culture - I said that historical documents are one data set in the analysis of a culture group.
>
> It would be very difficult to teach an entire course on Historical Archeology in one e-mail. The availability of written documentation is what sets Historical Archeology apart from Prehistoric Archeology. Using Archeology to check the historic record is not the intent. Using the recorded data to augment the interpretation of the material culture is the point. We used to say "prehistoric archeologists are textually challenged." This may even come from Beaudry - look up more by her - excellent work.
>
> Diane Dismukes
> Staff Archeologist
> Archaeological Studies Program
> Texas Department of Transportation
>
> >>> Matthew Johnson <[log in to unmask]> 05/23/00 04:37AM >>>
> Is not a man, sitting at an oak table, making marks in an account book,
> a behaviour?  Or have I missed something in all this?
>
> Matthew Johnson
>