In a message dated 8/10/99 4:38:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< Artifacts are what we do. It's my personal opinion that we should first
 concentrate on mastering the materials of our trade. We may be schooled in
 the social sciences, but our primary job is dealing with artifacts and
 other material remains.
  >>

I beg to differ with your "mild expression of contrary opinion" Ned.
Artifacts and material remains are merely the things that we use to
understand what we are really all about - better understanding human
behavior.  If archaeological evidence were not available (which sometimes it
is not) and there were other ways (and obviously there are - we use them in
tandum with archaeological evidence) of helping us understand the nature of
human behavior; of what, how and why changes take place in that behavior
through time, there would be those of use who would use them.  I agree that
mastering the basics of any field is critical to be able to work within it
most efficiently and to be able to draw out the most important data from it.
However, I have never considered it essential to know every projectile point
type, even in my region, in order to practice good archaeology (I can look
them up).  I've never considered it critical to know every method of
brickmaking or every ceramic type.  Certainly, if all of us were
quintessential rennaissance anthropologists (and lived in an era when there
was 1 percent of the knowledge that there is today), we could know all of
those things.  Today, it means that we must pick and choose what we can do
best.  For many of us I believe that means that we must become  either more
general or more specific in our work.  For the generalists, we must depend
more upon the specialists who gladly study and argue to better understand the
minutia of ceramic types.  I say to them "bravo, go for it".  As for me, I
will gladly use the fruits of their labors.

Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah