This message from Kathleen Wheeler:

Thanks, guys, for pointing out my typo.  The principle in question is "least
effort," as one of you correctly identified.  Yes, the premise is that
humans are basically lazy, and they will not go to great lengths to throw
away their trash.  The principle comes from Schiffer's behavioral
archaeology and is tied to other notions, such as McKellar's principle, the
"schlepp effect," and the Arlo Guthrie trash magnet concept.

Its relation to site formation processes is that because folks are basically
lazy, they will not engage in great effort to discard refuse (e.g., they
will not dig trash pits, but they might use a pit already dug and fill it
with trash, leaving a garbage-filled pit as per Dickens 1985, nor are they
likely to cart household refuse down the street to fill in a neighbor's
yard).  They will take as few pains as possible to build homes, resulting in
characteristic cellar ejecta mounds (these mounds are not the result of
someone carting wagon loads of dirt out to the site, then).   These sound
like "oh, yeah, that's obvious" notions, but I have heard some outrageous
explanations from field crew about what they were seeing in the
archaeological record, including that neighbors from all around a single
site brought their broken plates to the one estate being looked at -- hence
the reason for the great wealth of materials.  I also locked horns with a
crew member who insisted our tree throw Paleo site was really a pithouse
dwelling.  Nature has its own laws of site formation, as does culture, and I
like to have crew informed on these matters.

So, thanks again, for picking up on my typing error -- the ensuing
discussion has been one of great amusement for me.  I especially liked the
reference to Occarn's Razor.  So, if anyone knows of someone who mighy like
to work for an unabashed behavioral archaeologist, send them my name.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Wheeler
[log in to unmask]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Borstel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: "principle of least effect"


> In reply to Geoff Carver...
>
> > isn't it some sort of version of "mitigation" (in that term's real
> > sense [minimizing impact], not the one CRM seems to have
> >usurped [excuse for excavating])?
>
> But the term was used in relation to site formation processes, not
> mitigation, which is what made it puzzling.
>
> --Chris Borstel