In a message dated 4/22/99 3:19:51 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I also think that there is no reason why what we write for a wider public
 should not be written in the same style as we wreite for each other, and
 vice versa. It is difficult, and I'm not sure I can do it yet. But I aim to
 try. Any joiners?

 John


 Dr John Carman
 Clare Hall
 Cambridge CB3 9AL
 Uk >>

Here, here.  There is no better way to bring ourselves into better stead with
the public (whose money most of us live off of whether as a professor at a
university, in government or as a crm specialist) than to publish more
readable materials.  There was a time during the 1970s when I came close to
cancelling my membership in SAA because the journal became so obtuse and full
of unreadable and non-understandable jargon that I simply shelved issues and
didn't even bother to open them.  Historical Archaeology has been far better
through the years, but there are still those out there who seem to believe
that the more complex the language the more "scholarly" they will be thought
of and the higher they will be esteemed by their collegues (of course they
would never admit that).  HA!  I think more of us need to take lessons from
people like Jim Deetz, Ivor Noel Hume and Sir Mortimer Wheeler (were he still
alive) about making our writing styles more readable for ALL involved,
professional and public alike.

Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah