> Michael Scholl wrote:
>
> >The technological achievement of a particular
> >machine or ceramic vase may be appealing on a
> >certain level, but it's from (to use David's words
> >again) an understanding of the "past behavior,
> >social relationships, inequality, politics, etc."
> >that those objects take meaning and speak to the
> >present human condition.

Ned Heite rep lied:

> Begging your pardon, Mike.
>
> Under certain restricted circumstances, an
> archaeological project may, indeed, be purely
> anthropological . . .

Mr. Heite,

I have little to add to Diane Dismukes wonderful job
of developing the discussion, except to say that I
believe that you've projected your own fears onto me.

Advocating a people-oriented approach to archaeology
doesn't mean that I've dismissed historical metallurgy
or any other "discipline."

From reading you posts over the past year or so, I've
noticed that you repeatedly jump all over people for
things they really didn't say, and then do little to
try to understand what it is they were trying to
communicate.  If you had responded "Mike are saying
that an anthropological perspective is the *only* way
to do archaeology?" I would have said no, and maybe
clarified my point.

I don't mind you arguing with a straw man to make a
point, just don't put my name on it.

Michael Scholl

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com