I have done historical research for archaeologists for a long time
(though I am also a trained archaeologist). The one thing I can normally
guarantee is that I normally fail to answer all of the long list of the
questions archaeologists ask me at the first meeting. However, despite
this I have usually radically reinterpreted several aspects the site for
them by the end of the project. Anyway back to my Quebec paper.



In message <v01540b01b44f8edde443@[207.228.62.131]>, Morgan Blanchard
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Jake:
>      I thought it was interesting that in your treatment of history's role
>in historic archaeology, you left out the most interesting question, "why".
>(why is it here? Why was it abandoned? Why did they build out of this?  Why
>did they build in this stile? Why are there no feminine artifacts
>here?...ad infinitum) After all, the answer to the question "why" is what
>fills up the vast majority of both historical an archaeological works.
>The question might be covered loosely in your historical background section
>but I think it needs to be handled more overtly.  Admittedly this takes the
>historical archaeologist into unfamiliar territory, but I think we need to
>do our best to create an emic understanding of our sites and the best tool
>for doing this is the historical record.
>
>Morgan Blanchard
>
>>     But for hist.arch., historical research does, generall, three things
>>     for us: 1) the overview, or historical background, the broad context
>>     in which we think a site originated and was used; 2) site history, and
>>     ethnographic and material culture info from the records -- how life
>>     was lived at the site, and what was used there, or at one very like
>>     it; and 3) structural history, using the documents to tell us what was
>>     built at a site, and where, and when, and how it was changed.

Paul Courtney
Leicester UK