On Mar 6, 2006, at 4:22 PM, ARCHIVES automatic digest system wrote:
"pre-history" as a concept was no longer in fashion. Literate or
pre-literate, history or prehistoric, it's all just history now, he
said.
I didn't know what to make of that, but I don't think I like it.
I was trained to identify studies based on periods when the only evidence is material culture resources as archaeology. There is even sub-division of archaeology that does research related to time periods where there are written records called "historical archaeology."
As an aside: By it's very nature, archaeological excavation destroys the site being studied. Does that make field notes and maps primary or secondary resources?
There is a risk that micro-divisions can lead to fragmentation and inability to access relevant materials, but there is also an argument to be made that subfields can lead to greater precision in searching. Guess the real effect is job security for "information professionals."
Gypsye Legge
MLIS
[My signature is set on auto rotate, but this showing up on this message seems to be a comment on the other thread all by itself: ]
"I don't think I have heard a librarian talk like that before."
Jon Stewart
A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
*or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>