Geoff

I'm not sure that I agree with your characterization that the use of  
stratigraphy by Smith is a case of  "circular reasoning".  Circular  
reasoning, at least as I understand it is where you really have no  
basis for your statement or theory, but you proceed step by step  
until you have returned to the beginning and then say "see it works".

I don't see what Smith did as "circular reasoning", more applying a  
technique or idea from another discipline, or cross pollination. If  
borrowing is circular reasoning then much of archaeological theory  
and practice, including Marxism, is equally invalid because it is  
circular. There is nothing inherently wrong with co-opting/adapting  
good material and theories. Why waste all of the time necessary to  
produce only original ones, when other scholars are doing the work  
for us?

And while much of what antiquarians did, and it could be argued still  
do, was bad. It was from them that archaeology developed. Hopefully  
each generation does a better job than those who came before. But we  
all have to build on some foundation.

James Brothers, MA, RPA
[log in to unmask]