I would never call any archaeologist "mere!"
Of course, historians also consider artefacts as part
of the evidence (especially art historians) - it's not
all about reading documents.
Rob, you're spending too much time examining soil in
all weathers and not enough time reading history books
if you think that history is biased towards the
Janet Davis :-)
--- rob wrote:
> Ahhh but then we mere archaeologists are proving
> that some of our written
> history seems not to fit the artefactual evidence.
> Also archaeology isn't
> biased towards the victor like history writers are
> I would guess that the fact we archaeologists are
> out in all weathers
> examining our past from the soil in which it lays we
> are far superior to the
> dusty office hunters who call themselves historians
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J DAVIS" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: What is an archaeologist?
> > peter.mccrone wrote:
> > > So
> > > historians are actually a
> > > subset of archaeologists (a subject about which
> > > have had a number of
> > > debates with my other half, a history graduate.
> > Can't possibly be! Historians existed for a very
> > time before archaeologists.
> > The main difference between historians and
> > archaeologists is that historians get dusty
> > their source material, and archaeologists get
> > finding theirs.
> > Now that's settled, the next question is which
> > discipline is superior! (It is Friday!)
> > Janet Davis
> > Art historian and historian