Chris,
 
Sounds to me like your on to something.  I agree with your post and
personally I think the more energy a person spends bickering about which of
the many ways to conduct archaeology is the correct way, the less actual
archaeology they do!
 
For being members of a larger field that is supposed to be sensitive to the
fact that there are many ways of doing something that are often all equally
productive and valid (i.e., anthropology), archaeologists sure do fight a
lot about the "correct" way to do something.
 
With the destruction of archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic)
as rampant as it is, one would think more archaeologists would quite the
in-house fighting, pull together, and work to save cultural resources and
educate people about why this issue is important.  But then again, maybe
it's easier to argue than to work.
 
Scott Mitchell
Department of Applied Anthropology
University of South Florida, Tampa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Chris Ricciardi wrote:
 
> Hi all,
>
>     This is my first post to the list even though I've been a member for
> sometime now.
>
>      I've got to tell you all out there that I am starting to get really
> scared about the field that I have chosen to go into.  I am finishing up my
> Masters in Historical Archaeology right now and am off to a Ph.D. program
> (also for Historical Archaeology) in the fall.  However, with all the talk
> lately, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm doing the right thing.
>
>      After listening for two years of theory classes and all the bickering
> and "in-fighting" as to what Archaeology really is on this and other relevant
> list,  I'm beginning to wonder if  many Archaeologists out there really care
> about  the "field" of Archaeology.  From this graduate students humble point
> of view it seems that many don't. They're either too busy "fighting" back and
> forth over what their theoretical position is, what type of Archaeology they
> practice or why CRM is not as valid as academic archaeology (from the
> academic point of view not mine).
>
>      What happened to doing Archaeology for the benefit of human-kind?  Does
> anyone out there remember human beings?  After all, is not the major goal of
> Archaeology to try, as best as we can, to add new data to the picture of what
> has happened in the past of human beings?  Does it matter if it's from an
> academic, contractual, prehistoric, proto historic or historic point of view?
>
>
>       In this day and age where money is being cut from schools, tenured
>  professors are in jeopardy of losing their jobs, the Republican Congress want
> s to trim away money and laws that protect the past of this country, and to
> top it off, a growing disrespect for our field from many in the general
> public and academia itself, isn't it about time we (meaning everyone who calls
>  themselves an Archaeologist) stop all the infighting and do the things
> necessary to make our profession survive and make a difference?
>
>      As someone who has not had a lot of experience in the political field of
> Archaeology (so I know many of you will probably nail me as being, "just a
> student who doesn't know anything"), from the outside point of view, the
> field of Archaeology is beginning to look disorganized.  To coin a really
> stupid phrase, "Can't we all just  get along?"  It's about time we all do.
>  Stop the bickering and let's unite to do the things to save our profession
> and bring a little respect and  class to it.
>
>      Thanks,
>      Chris.
>      [log in to unmask]
>
>
> P.S.  I capitalized "Archaeology" all the time for effect.  I know its not
>         always supposed to be that way.
>