Did Scholl dismiss other disciplines as less worthy, or just state that they weren't anthropology? You yourself stated in a previous e-mail that archeology could benefit from "a stiff dose of interpretation from other disciplines (bold mine)". so by making that statement you recognize that the pure study of the history of technology for its sake alone is not within the discipline of anthropology, a sub field of which is archeology.

It doesn't mean these other disciplines are less worthy - just means they aren't archeology.

I am unable to accept that there is any professional archeology that "isn't anthropological at all".Ooxymoronic in my book.

Diane Dismukes