I have been lurking on the list  and have been following this thread all
week and am responding not to any particular post but to the whole tone and
direction. I am not interested in any long debates but I do have a few
comments. In the search for the right balance of archaeology and history Jim
Deetz's name came up a couple of times a someone who's approach was
successful. He was able to have an impact on the field because he was first
and foremost an ANTHROPOLOGIST and a student of material culture. He
considered the historic record as one category of material culture among the
many he studied to look for broad cultural patterns. He was a strong
believer in his approach and probably the only thing he would have admitted
agreeing with Binford on was that archaeology is "anthropology or it is
nothing" If we abandon the importance of anthropological training we will
all be lost with no direction.

                                                                                                Eric Deetz