We keep paying lip service to binford & "archaeology is anthropology" but
don't really take time to consider what this means 
Among other things, that is a very US-american view; I keep showing how
difficult it is translating this into german; let alone looking at the
british idea which almost puts archaeology as a prehistoric extension to
history, or canadian archaeology's historical ties to geology, etc.
We know about cultural differences among the great unwashed, but seem to be
unaware of them within our discipline... All those british field manuals
just taking it for granted that everyone uses Single Context Planning & the
Harris matrix, for example... Makes it difficult for me to discuss
methodology & things like reflexive methods to an international audience...
A few years ago someone here in germany protested that private CRM was bad
because excavations were done by students; whereas here in germany it is
usually more common to have unskilled workers do the work, and until
recently it wasn't common for universities to expect students to get field
experience or attend field school... Maybe some excavations in the US are
done by students, but archaeology students with field school experience;
here they're digging the subway line with mostly foreign students from other
disciplines who work 1 or 2 days a week while an archaeologist does the
documentation...
Anyway: one of my tangents
Reflexive, post-processual themes, of course, but... If they keep the ideas
flowing, while acting as a control on some of our more obvious mistakes...

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron May
Sent: March 28, 2007 09:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: dismiss folklore as fantasy

I suppose this is my ethnocentrism showing (kind of like a petard), as I
came from an anthropology background and considered folklore to be a part of
living culture.