Artifacts are what we do. It's my personal opinion that we should first
concentrate on mastering the materials of our trade. We may be schooled in
the social sciences, but our primary job is dealing with artifacts and
other material remains.

There are plenty of outlets for publishing social history, but only an
archaeological journal (or website) is going to publish ceramic typology.
Therefore, I repeat my personal opinion that our archaeological journals
should concentrate on what we do and publish the social theory in the more
cerebral branches of related fields.

This happens to be my opinion, which I am sharing. I repeat my original
contention that the archaeological journals (as a group, not singling out
any one) have wandered, and should be yanked back to the realities of what
we do.

If this mild expression of a contrary opinion is offensive, then go stuff it.



  Archaeologists readily identify the
  worst of the profession. We agree that     _(____)_
  the worst incompetents share 3 attributes:/        |
     1. They have fresh ideas;       _===__/   Baby  ||
     2. They write coherent prose;  | ___       ___  ||
     3. They are not in the room. o||| . \_____/ . \_|
  ____________________________   _ _  \_/_______\_/_____
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html