In a message dated 10/12/2006 4:54:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Rather  than trying
out other disciplines' hand-me-downs in a haphazard manner,  might not
archaeologists be better served leaving archaeology as a  discipline behind
and taking up residence as historians, economists,  geographers, etc., and
using archaeological methods to collect data and  apply the theoretical tools
available within their chosen  fields?



Actually, I am appalled and put off by some academics who go through  
theoretical approaches like worn-out dig shirts. In some cases, it takes years  if 
not decades to accumulate the kind of data necessary to test research  
hypotheses. Yet, I continually see consultants and academics rejecting  approaches like 
commodity flow, behavioralism, and frontier models simply  because some new 
trendy idea came into print the season before. It is my opinion  that so-called 
data mitigation must be a cumulative process and that no single  archaeology 
site can truly resolve a good mystery. In the contracting world, we  are 
facing extirpation of the entire data base by bulldozers and need to defend  the 
surviving population of collections in a meaningful way that elected  officials 
and agency managers appreciate. Only last week, ACRAlites were  discussing 
developing a popular monograph series that would market the value of  archaeology 
to the public. Tossing off research methods in public is as bad as  
bad-mouthing a colleague.
 
And, by the way, why would any developer or government agency pay thousands  
of dollars to curate collections if we cannot defend their future cumulative  
value?
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.