Binford said:  "Archaeology is Anthropology, or it is nothing."

Is historical archaeology anthropology by any means necessary/to hand;
artifacts (including fragments, objects, assemblages, features, sites,
etc.) documents and oral history?

If we privilege one source above others, do we come to define our
discipline by its methods, and lose sight of its goals?

Should we "do" anthropology--try to find out about past behavior, social
relationships, inequality, politics, etc., or not?




At 09:18 AM 8/11/99 -0600, you wrote:
>This discussion is fascinating in that I am amazed at the overly narrow and
>outdated concepts and the discussion concerning which is the most important
>aspect of information recovery and Historic Archaeology. Perhaps there is
some
>truth to the view held by some that Historic Archaeologists are neither
>Historians nor Archaeologists.
>
>There is no single thing, tool, or technique  which is more important than
any
>other-be it artifact, stratigraphy ceramics, context, or whatever. The entire
>place, including it's location, is an artifact. An artifact being something
>which is the product of human behavior. Modern archaeology, including the
>Historic variety, is concerned with people and their behavior. We want to
know
>who, what, where,  when, how, and why the people occupying a place did
what they
>did. Archaeology is not about artifacts, or stratigraphy, or ceramics.
These are
>all tools we use to answer the basic questions about human behavior posed
above.
>If the artifact, stratigraphy, ceramics are (or is) the primary interest
then we
>are no better, or farther along, than the Antiquarians of the last
century. This
>statement is not a slap at those who specialize in certain fields like
>stratigraphy or ceramics or faunal remains. While they are very important
their
>work is not the final endeavor. It is only one piece of the behavior we are
>trying to discern. Historic Archaeologist do archaeology of the Historic
Period,
>whenever that is where you are, and have an advantage (or disadvantage) of
>having access to some tools Prehistoric Archaeologist do not have. Most
notably
>written material. Whether it be Historic or Prehistoric the focus is (or
should
>be) the same-people and their behavior.
>
>Now before the folks on the list jump all over me please just read what I
said
>and mull it over before the flames begin. I also need to state that my
opinions
>are solely my own and in NO WAY represent those of my employer.
>
>Jim Chase
>