Content-type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:49:54 +1000 |
In-Reply-To: |
<v01550100b3e832be1a9d@[146.145.116.76]> |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>As I have said before, an archaeologist is a generalist or he is nothing.
>
I don't know if I have missed something here but it seems to me that Ned
has pretty specifically stated that he believes that historic archaeology
is a specific study of technology and change in material culture. I don't
believe for a moment that this is a generalist type of study of culture,
history, anthropology, or anything else. It seems to me that if you
establish a theoretical position you should back it up, you know, have a
little gumption to back up your nastiness. I don't agree with this
position but I don't have a problem with other folks having other views. I
do have a problem when people make clear statements and then turn around
and contradict them. I believe that continuity is important, and if you
change your theoretical position you should explain why.
Lon
|
|
|