On 03 May 1995, L. Daniel Mouer writes...
 
>1, 2, 3, 4, 5,.....be still my heart! Okay, forget it! Flames are in
>order here.
 
No Mr. Mouer, I don't believe that flames such as yours are ever in order
on a listserve designed to further knowledge of any kind. It never ceases
to amaze me that some people can get enjoyment out of such public degradation.
Your post does nothing more than to provide complete humiliation of
Caleb Smith and contributes absolutely nothing to his quest to answer
questions some of us find interesting and useful. While you will likely
forget this matter in a few days, I would venture to say that Mr. Smith
will remember it the rest of his life. For crying-out-loud, he's a student
who is conducting research that he believes is useful; evidently his
committee does as well. You certainly could have made your point in a much
less caustic manner, thereby creating an arena where everyone could debate
the points you made.
 
In relation to your comments, I have a few of my own...
 
>First, its "these" data, not "this."
 
What is this? Are we now stooping to the position of "Grammatical Police?"
 
>Second, they're not data, they're curios collected from a fishing
>expedition.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. So am I to assume that you have the proverbial
truth with what constitues data as opposed to clutter?
 
>Third, this sounds like geography, not archaeology.
 
I disagree. Geography and archaeology can and do compliment each other (as
I'm sure you are aware). Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri has been conducting
research almost identical to what Mr. Smith is attempting, and without a
doubt it has contributed to some excellent predictive modeling.
 
>Fourth, have you yet consulted even a basic discussion of rural
>settlement patterns in the vast historic and historic-geographic
>literature on the subject?
 
It that the end-all? Could it be that Mr. Smith intends to expand what has
already been published? Could it be that Mr. Smith may be intending to
use the literature you allude to and contribute additional data of use
to the profession as a whole? Your slap across his face is a slap across
his committee's face given they very likely have directed him to the, "basic
discussion of rural settlement patterns."
 
>Fifth, who cares? If you find that people in the Arkansas mountains
>mostly built houses on sunny slopes, will you really have
>contributed to the existing knowledge about farmstead life?
 
Without any reservation, I DO! We have been trying a similar strategy with
dugouts on the Great Plains and believe me, Mr. Smith's methodology and
data could provide a means by which to add to our own knowledge of pioneer
habitations *and* farmstead life. "Who cares?"... that's nothing more than
a cheap shot and without any semblance of respect; I resent it.
 
>Sixth, why aren't you seeking the distance someone placed a store
>from a farmstead, rather than vice versa?
 
Unless I missed something in "Introduction to Regional Analysis 1113," it
appears that both are important depending on the particular standpoint of
the research. Your sixth point seems rather tautological in my humble
opinion.
 
>Seventh, why are you doing environmental-determinist 1972-style
>archaeology in 1995?
 
Perhaps because there is some virtue with the exercise. Save the
post-processual deconstructionism until Mr. Smith finishes his research and
spare me the political harangue concerning your vision of archaeological
method and theory. Based on Mr. Smith's post, I fail to see the logical
leap to his intended methodological foundation.
 
>Eighth, why don't you excavate a farmstead or two and say something
>enlightening, intelligent and entertaining about the people who
>lived there?
 
Yea, and leave all the other farmsteads and their relation with each other
in a vacumn. I would suggest you follow your own course Mr. Smith; excavation
is find and dandy, but regional relationships can also be enlightening,
intelligent and entertaining.
 
>Ninth, have you even talked to Skip about this, and does he think
>it's a good idea? And if so, what are leaving out?
 
I think you have burned your bridge Mr. Mouer, and ours too, in terms of
getting Mr. Smith to respond further with his intended research on this
listserve. Given your aforementioned nine caveats of *truth*, I would not
be surprised if he ditched historical archaeology as a pursuit and
profession. Instead of counting only to five to, "still your heart,"
perhaps 100 would be of more benefit (?).
 
 
| Berkley B. Bailey - [log in to unmask] |
|  Disclaimen on behalf of The University of Oklahoma  |