The last number of the US journal
Inside Higher Education has an article by Steven Mintz, professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin ('
Can an Academic Discipline-exhaust-itself?', Jan 29th 2024) that has aroused some discussion This is a reflection on the current state of U.S. history as an academic discipline and a consideration of whether it has reached a point of stagnation or decline. There are few breakthrough scholars, moreover there is declining research productivity, and a perceived absence of significant reinterpretations of major historical topics. Ultimately, the text suggests that U.S. history may be at the end of a certain phase but, once this phenomenon is regognised and diagnosed, hints at the possibility of a new, more dynamic, and theoretically attuned history emerging. The author advocates for a more integrative and interdisciplinary approach, strengthening links with social sciences and more firmly addressing conceptual and ethical questions. "If U.S. history is to remain relevant, it must do more to connect the past to the present in meaningful ways, to address big conceptual, theoretical and ethical questions; place U.S. history in comparative perspective".
Christopher W. Jones has commented:
What if... dare I suggest it... U.S. history has never been a particularly
methodologically innovative field? [...] There has never been an Americanist Braudel, because there
cannot be an Americanist Braudel, because U.S. history as a discipline begins in 1776 or 1609 and therefore is incapable of considering the longue durée or even most of the conjunctures. [...] The solution, if anyone is wondering, is to
re-define the 20,000 year history of human habitation of North America as "American history" and not self-limit the field to just the last 250 or so. [...]
American history has a different purpose in the United States from other historical fields, and is more about creating and shaping national narratives as part of the constant re-formation and negotiation of group identity. American history doesn't ask the big questions and can't answer them. That's not its purpose. Its central question is "who are we?" [...] .
Does the main argument of the original essay apply to US [or any other] archaeology too? (not so much the digging up of ever-more new "discoveries", but the way enquiry is framed, conducted and presented)
Vignette: Archaeology as "Discovery"
.webp)
2 comments:
My dear fellow, how are you? I see that bounder Rushton and one of his obnoxious band of detector-wielding sacrilegious scavengers have once again hit the headlines by uncovering a magnificent example of a Medieval Gold Noble. I am so sorry that the finder destroyed the first six inches of strata deemed to be of the utmost importance to the biased bigots posing as serious archaeologists, but after witnessing the wanton destruction caused in uncovering the remains of Richard III, I, and many more serious minded people consider that argument no longer holds water. So, following the legal path, the coin will be subjected to a Coroner's Inquest, then there will be two options available to the Coroner, option one, whether was it a casual loss, or, option two, whether it was deliberately buried to be recovered at a later date. Option one is the obvious answer resulting in the coin being returned to the original finder and then it is up to the landowner/ farmer whether he wants the finder to sell it and split the money or the finder to keep it for himself. I think the first option would be the favourite which would, I assume result in a museum purchasing the coin where it would be put on display to bring untold joy to the great unwashed masses. Or maybe he should have left it where it was in the middle of a cold, damp, field?
Have a lovely evening.
Dr. S.
Hmm. As I said... Archaeology as discovery.
I really do not know who "Rushton" is, or what "band" he runs, still less what "headlines" are referred to here, apparently connecting the find to Richard III....
What puzzles me however is why a single coin find would be subject to any kind of Coroner's inquest, the Treasure Act says something else. And really De. Shephard, a Coroner's inquest does not work like the old (pre-1996) Treasure Trove legislation, please get up to date before coming on here and misinforming my readers! Ask the PAS to explain the Treasure laws to you, it's their job!
Post a Comment