On Thu, 27 Oct 1994, L. Daniel Mouer wrote:
 
> Mark Landon fears for the pot, the site and the discipline. I fear
> for my sanity and attention span sitting through endless paper
> presentations about bells and whistles. I recall one experience in
> which highly paid technotypes pulled wires, sled, radars and
> doohickies galore over a site while, at the same time, a small crew
> dug shovel-test pits.  After the bells-and-whistles crowd send their
> data tapes to computer central and, months later, got back their
> analyzed and enhanced dot-density plots, they were able to point to a
> few "anomalies" under the ground. A handful of undergrads pointed out
> that anomaly 1 was a 15' sdquare cellar hole filled ca. 1640, anomaly
> 2 was the floor of a Civil War offier's winter hut, anomaly 3 was a
> late middle woodland hearth, and there were bunches more features for
> which no squiggles appeared on the graphs. When it's useful use it,
> otherwise, lose it.
>
> An old fart.
>
wait.  Computer tapes?  months later?  computer central?  Overstating to
prove a point here?  I've read both yours an Mr. Landon's arguments, and
I swear that this argument comes up every time new technology comes
along.  First, lets establish what I am not saying:
        1)  I am not saying that computers should replace standard
        archaeological techniques.  Far from it.
        2) I am not suggesting that computers or technophiles should be
        doing archaeological fieldwork.
 
What I am suggesting is that in the right frame, practiced the right
way, computers have alot to offer archaeology beyond word processing.
Alot of this stuff, including the plotting of anomalies and such can be
done  in-house.  The use of video cameras to help document artifacts is
novel and deserves investigation.  The possibility for this educationally
is astounding.  Digital images could make finding and comparing artifacts
easier  by a great degree both within a project and across projects.  No,
computers are not going to take over the field.  Computers have yet to
learn by experience (at least significantly), which is a skill of our
field that is golden.  But they are tools.  Just like your trowell is a
tool.  Just like your transit.  You can still practice archaeology
without them, but you practice archaeology much better with them.
- John Buckler
University of MD College Park