Jake Ivey asked:
 
>        Is one objective of historical archaeology to determine the
>     function of a structure located by that archaeology?
 
And Chris Matthews replied:
 
>I for one love being an anthropologist.  It is people I am trying to
>understand.
 
and Dan Mouer concluded:
 
>In fact, it is the recreating of such "life histories" for
>buildings, yards, and other features that I find so rewarding about the
>discipline. Perhaps if architectural historians had your insights into their
>buildings they would quit trying to validate their failings with theory shifts!
 
Dan, you are taking a polarized position relative to the art-historical
approach. We have theoretical failings, too, you know.
 
There should not be a chasm between the historical and the art-historical
approaches, but there is. Park Service bulletins (like #16) pay lip service
to the idea of doing above-grade archaeology (in the sense we use it) on
standing buildings, but unfortunately it doesn't always happen. Unless a
property is nominated under Criterion D, the actual (functional and social)
history of the building's fabric probably will go un-investigated because
the "description" part of the report will be delegated to an architectural
historian. We are guilty of erecting an artificial wall between the
disciplines in such formal environments as the National Register program.
 
To us, function is (almost) everything. If, in our reports, we bury the
explanation of function under a mound of jargon, then we are not performing
our own function as interpreters. So there is every reason to believe that
this particular criticism is justified.
 
Our mission should be to educate the public, and the rising generation of
students, in the idea that the historical and the art-historical approaches
are equally valid, and should be considered directly. We must teach
balance.
 
Yes, we are sometimes guilty of being just as one-sided as the
architectural historians. It's a rare archaeological report that puts
objects in their aesthetic contexts.
 
Go ahead, it's okay to say that artifacts are also pretty things.
 
 
___(_____)           When does a good archaeologist become an
|Baby the\           incompetent archaeologist?
|1969 Land\_===__
   ___Rover   ___|o
|_/ . \______/ .  ||  Answer: Just after he leaves the room.
 __\_/________\_/________________________________________________
Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html