From the perspective of someone who is an architectural historian but also
an archaeologist, it may have a lot to do with training.  I suspect most
historic archaeologists learn at least basic things about architecture--or
at least have sense enough to go find an architectural historian or
architect to help them interpret building remains.  But when I was taking
graduate architectural history/preservation planning courses, I distinctly
recall a session presenting student projects set in a historic community
(Nantucket).  Students were going on about proposed subsurface drainage
improvements, utilities, etc., with no consideration whatsoever of the
archaeological remains which were undoubtedly present in the yards of these
18th-19th century houses.  Why?  They didn't take any courses that talk
about archaeology, and probably have little contact with archaeologists
unless they go to work for a CRM firm or an academic program that addresses
preservation more broadly (example University of Mary Washington
undergraduate program). 

I have long been convinced that the best programs (and as a consultant, the
ones that produce the best employees) are those that require (or at least
offer) coursework that crosses disciplines in the world of cultural
resources:  basics in archaeology, architectural history, historic research,
planning, CRM regulations, etc.

Lucy Wayne

SouthArc, Inc.
3700 NW 91st Street, Suite D300
Gainesville, FL 32606
(352)372-2633, fax (352)378-3931, toll free 1-888-707-2721
www.southarc.com

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 5:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Thad Van Bueren's Archaeology & Architectural History

My understanding, Harding, is that much of this began with  the 
establishment of the National Historic Preservation Act.   Architectural
historians 
were not as keen on being a part of the governments  efforts in historic 
preservation as archaeologists, despite the fact that the  effects of urban 
renewal during the 1960s was the biggest reason for  passage of the act in
the 
first place. This led to a number of regulations  that favored archaeology.

Add to that, ongoing political  maneuvering to protect and enhance grants
and 
regulatory control  and academic turf protection.
 
Balkanization is probably the best word that one could use to describe this 
 endless standoff.  We have seldom made much headway in Utah on the subject 
 and many, many construction projects have been approved here with only  
consideration made for architecture.  This, despite the fact that  
archaeological components were either visible or almost certain to exist on
the sites 
being studied.  
 
Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants
Ogden, Utah 
 
 
In a message dated 8/22/2011 3:00:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Bravo!  =20

Why the two should be considered in isolation has always been a  mystery to=
me and represents Balkanization at its worse.  The two  disciplines comple=
ment each other and add to and broaden each field's  study.  The more they=
are combined the fuller picture of life at any  particular site we shall=
have.=20

Harding Polk  II
Archaeologist
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Southwest  Region
Albuquerque, NM






-----Original  Message-----
From: Jake Ivey <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2011 2:20 pm
Subject: Thad Van  Bueren's Archaeology & Architectural History


I've been thinking  about Thad's posting, and now I'm going back to it=20
because I think the  problem of interaction between historians,  
architectur=
al=20
historians, and archaeologists needs more comment.  I'm going to throw a=20
big chunk of text in here, taken from a report I  wrote a few years ago in=
=20
the 1990s, that discusses this point. It's  from an architectural and=20
archaeological history I wrote of the mission  at Pecos Pueblo, in New Mexi=
co.=20
=20
'The archaeological  information was not only critical to our knowledge of=
the dates of use and  sequences of construction of the buildings at the si=
te [of the mission of  Pecos], but also added to our knowledge of the histo=
ry of the Pecos  mission in areas that the historical records alone were si=
lent. This is  not an intuitive conclusion =E2=80=93 it rather tends to sur=
prise most  people.=20
'In 1964, Ivor Noel Hume referred to historical  archaeology as the =E2=
=80=9Chandmaiden to history=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93  where =E2=80=9Chandmaiden=
=E2=80=9D meant =E2=80=9Csomething whose  essential function is to serve an=
d assist...=E2=80=9D Noel Hume reviewed  the reasons for doing =E2=80=9Chis=
torical site archaeology=E2=80=9D and  concluded that =E2=80=9Cthe only rea=
son for archaeological interest in  the historical period is to obtain, not=
relics, but information.=E2=80=9D  This information was not new historical=
data, whereby archaeology would be  another source of information like doc=
umentary history, but rather could  be used to help =E2=80=9Cto reconstruct=
and interpret the social  history=E2=80=9D of a given period. Beyond this,=
archaeology and history  complemented each other, he said =E2=80=93 =E2=80=
=9Cthe two disciplines  combine to give the past a new dimension.=E2=80=9D=
That is, =E2=80=9Cby  accepting and using the techniques and products of=
archaeology the  historian is ... able to broaden his own knowledge,=E2=80=
=9D while at the  same time making =E2=80=9Chis studies more readily accept=
able to the  general public=E2=80=9D by giving the historian=E2=80=99s text=
-based  research a physical aspect in terms of sites, building remains, and=
the  artifacts of daily life of a time or person.=20
'This concept  expressed by Noel Hume in 1964 that archaeology was princi=
pally a  technique that would =E2=80=9Cserve and assist=E2=80=9D the histor=
ian was  a restatement of the perception of the relationship between archae=
ology  and history encountered throughout most of the twentieth century in=
this  history of the archaeology and architecture of Pecos. That is,  the=
historical documents revealed everything important about a site, and  arch=
aeology simply provided artifacts and structures from the lives of  those=
who lived at the site, while at the same time preparing it for  public dis=
play. The possibility that archaeology could be a separate and  powerful so=
urce of historical information was simply not a part of the  thinking of mo=
st of those involved in historic sites  research.=20
'As we have seen, however, no documentation adequately  records the histo=
ry of a place. Even in a document-rich environment like  the history of the=
missions of San Antonio, Texas, or the mission system  of California, a gr=
eat deal has to be inferred beyond the specifics of  the documentary record=
. At San Antonio, for example, the physical record  of the construction and=
changes to the missions, as revealed by an  intensive examination of the=
surviving structures of the mission  buildings, and the archaeological evi=
dence for structural change found in  the ground, allowed an interpretation=
of the architectural history that  was not possible from documents  alone=
=3D=20