Much depends on who you're doing your archaeology for - if it's for me (the
general public) then I also (from general ignorance) require some
hisrorical interpretation - to put some meat on the bones and make what you
find meaningful in the context of human history. If you leave the
contextual interpratation to historians who have no affiliation to
archaeology then your work is almost bound to be either misinterpreted,
misrepresented or even ignored entirely.
I presume that archaeologists are driven by a desire to uncover human
history - if digging for its own sake was their preoccupation then miing or
civil engineering might be a more financially rewarding and satisfying
pursuit ;)
I don't subscribe to the old idea that archaeologists are merely the
hand-maidens of history, - rather they are the technicians of 'history'
and should probably take a much more active role in the writing of it -
which indeed many have done.
Perhaps there needs to be an international body of archaeologists to review
the work of historians and officially denounce their wilder romances ?
Eric
----------
> From: geoff carver <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: historians and historical archaeology
> Date: 10 April 1999 14:01
>
> just something that came up in relation to a lecture by a historian here
in
> dresden: just how much interplay is there between historians and
archaeologists
> elsewhere? as in: do the historians use our information or otherwise take
us
> seriously, or do they just sort of continue plodding along with their
> documentary evidence r.e. founding of towns/cities/whatever, regardless
of what
> our evidence says to the contrary?
>
> geoff carver
> http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
> [log in to unmask]
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|