I suggest that many of us work on much smaller chunks that cumulatively comprise the development of human culture and society, chunks that may have use-value as well as broadly contribute to knowledge. Focused research on gender, race, inequality, and environmental degradation are intellectual, as well as practical, pursuits.
I once asked a young colleague over a post-session lunch at a conference why she valued teaching so highly. Her response: she wanted to live the life of the mind. As an aging, but I think still productive scholar who has always earned his living in commercial archaeology, I was amused. I didn't ask what it was that she thought the rest of us were doing.
The very act of questioning what we do, and on a regular basis, suggests that we pursue archaeology as an intellectual enterprise. I doubt the same could be said of many treasure hunters and collectors. 
 
 
 
James G. Gibb

Gibb Archaeological Consulting

2554 Carrollton Road

Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403

443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)

www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
 
On 05/26/15, geoff carver<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
I think that's supposed to be the purpose of archaeology as a scientific (?) discipline; what distinguishes archaeologists from antiquaries, treasure hunters, etc.

-----Original Message-----

Does one's research have to be a "sustained inquiry into the development of human culture and society" to be intellectual?