Historic site archaeology in relation to other archaeology

Abstract

This is in some sense a progress report on Historic Site Archaeology as a discipline, and in some sense an attempt to establish the place of Historical Archaeology or Historic Site Archaeology in relation to other kinds of ar chaeology. It is also concerned with the prob lem which confronts many professional and academic people who become involved in the practical application of their field. In this case, the question would be: "What is real archaeology?" A common concept of Historical Site Ar chaeology is that it is a purely "practical" ap plication, of methods better used elsewhere, to answer immediate, often political, questions. This is partly because there are certain sub jects which are more commonly studied by this technique than others. The other subjects have a large amount of information available through documents or other sources, or are so common and everyday that one does not think of "studying" them. For this reason, archaeology seems restricted to being a method of studying those places and people who are so remote from us in time that this is the only way by which they can be studied. Some people would say that there was a contradiction in the very term "Historic Site Archaeology". It is normal to think of archae ology as being concerned with "Prehistory". The boundary line of what is historic may change, depending on when written records become available for an area. Thus, "History" begins thousands of years ago in the eastern Mediterranean, but less than two centuries ago for much of North America. Most people think of the era after historical records have started in North America as being the proper subject of study for historians, and the period before that as being prehistoric and the study of ar chaeologists.