>Don't tell me, again, how useless archaeology is as a field. Instead, tell
>me how many public talks *you* gave in 1999.
>Kris Hirst

Well ... it is interesting how quickly our dialogue can become somewhat of
a finger pointing session. I notice that many folks often go on the
defensive and use their experience to argue that the people in this
dialogue are not worthy to speak on the subject. As if I need to give a
cetain number of public talks in order to question the utility of
archaeology? This is really neither here nor there ... and my response to
this is quite petty (mea culpa) ... but I would like to get to some of the
points that Kris raised ...

The several projects that were pointed out are excellent examples of
archaeologists actually making impacts with their work. In these cases ...
the archaeology is really undertaken as a service to the "public interest"
... which I believe it should be ... especially considering where most of
the funding comes from nowadays. I think that we need more projects such as
these ... but I also think that we need not solely focus on "factual
knowledge" of the past. It is just as important to discuss "how" we think
about things as it is to discuss "what" we think about. I am reminded of a
recent letter that I wrote to a colleague ... where this same issue
reminded me of the the admonition to not give a fish to the hungry but to
teach the hungry to fish. And ... I imagine that we all are the hungry in
this case.

Kris is correct in saying that we have many opportunities to get involved
with the public ... I agree ... many groups of folks are interested in
archaeology. Of course ... many groups of folks aren't interested ... so I
wouldn't take the subscription rate of "Archaeology" magazine as a
reflection of the overwhelming public interest in the discipline. But ... I
think that this raises an important issue ... an issue that was also
brought up by James Brothers and James Gibb among others as to our present
mode of publishing (or lack thereof). I think it will take some serious
restructuring ... particularly in the academic world ... before we can
really do a "public archaeology" that doesn't rely on antiquated notions of
"outreach" ... but really "reaches out" (excuse my indulgence) to the
public and includes many voices and interests at the initial inception of a
research project.

I envision this type of archaeology as one that incorporates
non-archaeologists and archaeologists alike ... not one that solely relies
on press releases and public lectures. We need to create dialogues even
prior to the iniation of research if possible ... and let other interests
inform our own programs and agendas. There are examples of this type of
research ... many of them ... and just off the top of my head ... the work
of Linda Derry and Carol McDavid come to mind.

Kevin.