Dear dear Trevor,
You may have hit on the reason for miscommunication between
archaeologists and historians. You say:
>Surely, archaeology is always a multi-disciplinary enterprise; what changes
>period / region / project is the range of other specialists with whom I as an
>archaeologist collaborate...Historians have been around for a good deal
>longer than archaeologists, and they carry some old baggage with them.
>Among the baggage is the belief that the scholar works away alone.
Do you mean by this that historians are not multi-disciplinary? My
experience is that historians are of necessity multi-dsciplinary. In the
academic world they have to publish to survive. To understand their
subject they must often be literate in languages, economics, politics,
medicine and chemistry, or other disciplines, and consult specialists and
texts on these various aspects of their subject to interpret their own
focus. I don't think any scholar worth his salt (forive me) can work
On 3/12/04 1:02 AM Trevor Watkins writes:
Historians have been around for a good deal
longer than archaeologists, and they carry some old baggage with them.
Among the baggage is the belief that the scholar works away alone - as
universities used to say, engaged in 'private study and research'. Among
archaeologists, only the navel-gazers can work that way.