These days people seek knowledge, not wisdom.  Knowledge is of the past;
wisdom is of the future.
                Vernon Cooper, Lumbee Medicine Man
                Wisdomkeepers
 
Reply to Mat Tomaso et. al.:
 
In recent exchanges some innocent and harmless fun was directed towards the
depths of "minutia" that can be reached when contemplating esoteric
distinctions between prehistoric and historic archaeology, as well as between
prehistoric and historic archaeologists.  Some took it with the lighthearted
humor it was wrapped in, while others took a more serious tone or bent
suggesting deep-rooted differences and issues.  I will now fan the flames of
those who "burn" when pondering such issues.
 
It has been asserted that P & H archaeologists differ by the nature and
content of the phenomena they study, their methods and resources, goals and
objectives, and all the rest of the usual clap-trap that you get from those
who study culture-historical vs. culture-functional approaches to
archaeology.  Although referred to by many labels, it is commonly explained
that the former is the hallmark of traditional archaeology as practiced by
Griffin, Ford, Guthe, Greenman, Krieger, Kidder, and a cast of thousands more
(now mostly dead and equally unable to defend themselves) and, the latter,
exalted as the banner of the "New" archaeology (I apologize for the 60's
Binfordian term) as claimed to be practiced by Binford, Spaulding, Hill,
Evans, South, and others.
 
Let us consider the issue of classification and typology.  While it is a
necessary process in any level of phenomena for introducing order into an
unstructured field, the resulting classification or typology devised is not
the end result sought - even though this often happens.  Classification
involves the placing of persons, objects and events into discrete "classes"
by virtue of their common properties that are shared by members of the same
class.  By typology is meant a classification that is explicitly theoretical
in intent as opposed to one intended as a purely descriptive categorization.
 Both imply rules, either implicitly or explicitly stated, assigning members
to classes thereby constructing or defining the categories.  What
differentiates the classes or categories and, hence the classification or
typology, are the differences.  That is while two typologies may have members
in common, they can not have identical membership and still be different
classes or categories.  Such classifications and/or typologies are useful to
the extent that relations between one set of facts or observations and
another reveal new information.  Are our constructed types real or
artificial?  The empiricist is likely to subscribe to the metaphysical notion
that artifacts possess inherent meanings or significance while the positivist
assumes that there are no inherent meanings within artifacts.
 
Now let us apply this distinction to a specific situation or case to see how
such conceptual differences often mislead us or mask the real issues
involving analysis and classification be it prehistoric or historic
archaeology.
 
So that I will not be accused of picking on a cripple (prehistoric
archaeology) that is generally acknowledged as lacking a contemporary,
written record for reality check, let me cast my eye on historic archaeology.
 Pick up any site report or even advanced study (if you can find one) on an
18th or 19th century site and look at the author's uses of material culture.
 Say ceramics, for example.  Nine out of ten times you will find the
construction of types, either ware, decorative or a combination of the two,
to describe the classes or categories for use in determining chronology or
temporal periods either alone or in conjunction with historical
documentation.  This is creamware - it dates such and such, this is pearlware
- it dates such and such, this is whiteware (whatever whiteware is?) - it
dates such and such and this is majolica - it dates such and such.  This is
fine and acceptable as long as the classes (types) can be identified or
distinguished from one another.  However, in many cases specific typologies
can not be distinguished for a variety of reasons such as subtleties in paste
and glaze composition, especially in the creamware-pearlware-whiteware
continuum, lack of diagnostic portions of decorated vessels, plain or
undecorated vessels, etc.
 
What should be developed or constructed is a well-defined stylistic sequence
resulting from the study of decorative and technological attributes of
vessels for adequate dating of historic sites to within a five year period or
less.  No, no one ever told me that the cabin stewards ate the strawberries.
 Again [pausing to take some round steel balls out of his pocket and rolling
them in my hand] this was a lie perpetrated by unloyal and disreputable
officers under my command. I tell you right here and now that the
strawberries did exist!  I proved through geometric logic that -uh, uh - of
course I can't remember every detail, but if you ask me specific questions, I
will give you specific answers.
 
Pat Tucker