Having just had a quick trawl through subsequent BAs in 2007 there
seems to be only one genuine "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" see:
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba93/letters.shtml
although the star letter is a bit ambivalent.
P G-B
On 06/10/2010 10:26, PETTS D.A. wrote:
> I am sure I saw some fairly negative letters in, I think, British
> Archaeology, following an article about the Bristol transit van project.
>
>
> D
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion List for Contemporary and Historical Archaeology
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MAY, Sarah
> Sent: 06 October 2010 10:15
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is the contemporary past crap?
>
> That's not to say it is crap by nature, just that we are doing a crap
> job of it. I've never read anything in print saying it isn't a
> reasonable field of study for archaeologists, and to be honest I've
> never had anyone say it to my face. I think, though, that the scarcity
> of funding and positions for its study shows that it isn't considered in
> the same light as other aspects of archaeology. But then again, that may
> be the same as Dan's post, we just need to do more of it, and to do it
> better.
>
>
> All the best
> Sarah
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion List for Contemporary and Historical Archaeology
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Hicks
> Sent: 05 October 2010 22:24
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is the contemporary past crap?
>
> Nan Rothschild, reviewing Buchli and Lucas' 'Archaeologies of the
> Contemporary Past' in American Anthropologist (2003), observed how the
> field can be 'frustratingly shy of its goals'.
>
> DH
>
> On 5 Oct 2010, at 16:37, John Schofield wrote:
>
> Do you mean '... for archaeologists to study the contemporary past?'
>
> Just checking.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion List for Contemporary and Historical Archaeology
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of pmgb
> Sent: 05 October 2010 16:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CHA] Is the contemporary past crap?
>
> Scepticism has often been expressed, at least verbally, as to whether
> it is legitimate to study the contemporary past. But has anyone actually
> said so in print?
>
> P
>
> --------------------------
> contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
> in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
> for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
> -------
> For email subscription options see:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
> -------
> Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting
> dates:
> http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
> --------------------------
>
> --------------------------
> contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
> in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
> for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
> -------
> For email subscription options see:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
> -------
> Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting
> dates:
> http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
> --------------------------
>
> --------------------------
> contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
> in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
> for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
> -------
> For email subscription options see:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
> -------
> Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
> http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
> --------------------------
>
--------------------------
contemp-hist-arch is a list for news and events
in contemporary and historical archaeology, and
for announcements relating to the CHAT conference group.
-------
For email subscription options see:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/contemp-hist-arch.html
-------
Visit the CHAT website for more information and for future meeting dates:
http://www.contemp-hist-arch.ac.uk
--------------------------
|