Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
In recent discussions about digging up your past.. it seems that the social and living history is as imporatnt as the remains (duh!)
The trouble comes with the defined roles of 'archaeologists' who dig holes and look at bones and pots... The various 'new' roles involing built heritage, social history, modern archaeology etc... suggest that we are moving towards - or should be considering moving towards being Heritage Enviroment Professionals .. where within that braod brush, all these roles can exist, overlap and support.. without the credulous eyebrow raising that accompanys a request to record a bus station while it still is a bus station.. or a mill before it closes (I missed the last mill in midlothian by a few months!) The IFA and IHBC could then merge happily into a new organisation, which encompasses the 'whole' of heritage from building to pit, from science to oral histories?
thoughts?
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
If archaeology is the study of past societies through their material culture, then anything and everything physical made by humans since just now is archaeology - including documents, which are physical remains - so historians are just specialised archaeologists (I dedicate this post to all the history professors in the past who have said that archaeology is the hand-maiden of history).
So lets start recording that 1989 carpark surface before getting stuck in with the JCB - after all, we've already done the Transit van that was parked on it
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I wish I had more time to answer this in detail.
Why are archaeologists the right people for example to record a 1989 bus station via a standard planning condition or a modern industrial process?
I think a clear distinction has to be made about archaeology as a discipline and what us CRM types do.
The tarmac surface of a car park should be recorded in any event. Standard Practice.
David the term is historic environment not heritage environment.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Hi All
As far as I'm concerned archaeology is what you find after you've dug through the Roman rubbish to get to the interesting stuff.
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Did I write heritage... must have heritage on the brain!! I of course meant Historic!! (how embarrassing!)
And yes Peter, you have hit the nail on the head.. Archaeologists are not the right people to record a bus station (though I should add the one I am asking for record on is 1920's), The breadth of the Historic Environment (ah... done it!) is such as to require professionals in several disciplines, united under a common banner.. and as such, Archaeologists do archaeology, Historic Buildings Analysts record buildings, Social history specialists record social history etc... using archaeology as the catch all (as archaeology for better of worse is now firmly associated with sub surface features) belies the scope of knowledge needed and skills required. In as much as a Mesolithic specialist might not be the right person to record an industrial structure â not because they could not do it using similar methods, rather that it would take someone who understands industrial and industry related processes and background to best interpret what they were dealing withâ¦
How can an archaeologist who spends much of their time investigating sub surface features be expected to be able to record a bus station ? where is the framework or terms of reference âdifferent criteria, different methods, etcâ¦.that should be done by an architectural historian and a social historian.
Archaeologists too often stick the hand in the air and go â I can do that, I can do thatâ¦.â
As a Buildings Archaeologist â I see a clear distinction between recording a building with drawings and photographs and understanding a building and its function, spatial use, materials and form⦠that takes a different skill. And perhaps I can understand why the IHBC sees archaeologists as âpredatoryâ as it muscles into a lucrative market.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Gog, the study of the material aspects of a document and the study of the contents of that document are two very different processes, surely? Are you suggesting that all archaeologists are skilled in palaeography and documentary analysis also?
I'm not trying to be cheeky cos I don't post here very often, but I was curious. And I don't agree with your professors that archaeology is the handmaiden to history. No siree - I think they are very compatible bedfellows... Does anyone else agree, or are historians a waste of time (archaeologically speaking)?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Agree Shorty.. we should complement each other but recognise where skills are crossing into another area.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Historians as handmaidens of archaeology or vice versa - they perform somewhat different roles with an end result which is similar - to explain and understand the past. I believe a lot of historians don't understand archaeology and vice versa. Both have limitations (history particularly for prehistorians) but a combination of proper archaeological interpretation and proper historical reseanch combined an give a result which is greater than the sum of the parts for some sites.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
I'm aware that some historians scoff at archaeology - or more specifically - at archaeological interpretations of a site/event etc. I make a lot of use of archaeological reports without fully understanding the process that leads to conclusions. However, they've thrown up some real surprises for me, sometimes contradicting historical evidence or assumptions. Naturally, I've taken them seriously, but more traditional historians insist I disregard archaeology as it's not 'real' history. I think the phrase was, "You're reading far too much into it". The belief being that arkies take something almost insignificant and recreate an entire community from it, or whatever. Oh well, I'll keep fighting...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
The two should be used together:
E.g. Battle of the Little Bighorn, an iconic event in US history with a very definite image (Custer's Last Stand). Archaeology suggests a totally different interpretation, with no Last stand taking place as the troopers were rapidly squished by a massive attack.
On the other hand, the defence of britain project has shown a vast network of defensive lines across Britain - how many large undated ditches have been wrongly interpreted as medieval or earlier over the years when a study of historical sources may have shown them to be anti-tank ditches (a class of archaeological feature not even thought of by archaeologist before DoB)?
