Hello everyobdy,
 
I received my B.A. in anth last year and recently got my first job, with a
contract firm (hip hip hooray!).  Having not yet been through graduate
studies and having only worked a few weeks I have not developed my own
thoughts, theories, and arguments for or against anything in the field of
archaeology.  A graduate student that I will be working with calls
historical arch an adjunct of archaeology.  Knowing that I want to study
historical arch as a graduate he asked me "what can historical arch learn
from digging that it cannot learn from the written record?"
 
I know this was somewhat discussed recently but I subscribed in the middle
of the arguments and much of it was beyond me as I have not yet been
_around_ much.  So, if any of you care to enlighten me or wish to get in on
the ground floor of molding and shaping my anthropological mind ... be my
potter, I am the clay ... go for it.
 
What is the point of digging if it is written?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Todd A. Pitezel     ~     ~ "You dug it up, boy.  Make sure you describe it,
   [log in to unmask]     ~~~~~   because you can't undo your deed"
   Dallas, TX          ~     ~          Sir Mortimer Wheeler-Archaeologist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~