I happen to agree with Jake - the why is the reason I do what I do. However that is not the case with everyone and therein lies the difference of theory. We all come to our profession with a phenomonology that dictates what we are interested in. In effect we all work from an abdabpted paradigm whether we have defined it or not, whether it fits one of the prescribed anthropological theories or not. It is always somewhat shocking to me when someone is not interested in the why but rather more interested in the what. They don't care why the group worshiped the badger, but are more interested in the Badger Ceremony, the Badger Clan organization or the Badger Pipe Cults use of different herbs for smoking. These people work from a different theoretical perspective than I do and so they ask different questions and seek different truths. I ask why and they ask what or how.

The units you open and the statistics you use are governed by the question you are interested in finding the answer to. I personally think you should know what that question is before you go into the field and I think you call that your research design. Your research design will dictate your scope of work. So in the end it all comes full circle, the theoretical perspective from which you work dictates the questions you ask up front and has a big effect on the information you end up with at the conclusion - and that works for both archeology and history.

I could go on and on but I have probably gotten myself in trouble already.

Diane Dismukes
Wholly my opinions and representative of noneother.

>>> Jake Ivey <[log in to unmask]> 11/11/99 08:31AM >>>
     Morgan and all:

     Yes, the "why" is an implicit question you ask of the records, but we
     were talking about a hierarchy of "fact."  Structures found in the
     ground are facts (if you're sure you have a structure, that is) -- and
     if a document described them and allowed you to find them, you can say
     that the document told you the truth.  The next level up, material
     culture information in the records, creeps into the area that Ned was
     talking about: you don't know who actually wrote the records or what
     their agenda was.  You assume that a group of internally consistent
     records is telling you something like a truth, if you can work out a
     hypothetical reality that ties them together, but you always keep in
     mind that you could wake up tomorrow with a completely different
     hypothetical construct that fits those records.  Or the discovery that
     the whole set is a forgery -- although this isn't likely.

     Making that hypothetical construct from the array of data is where
     your personal theoretical basis for historical research will be most
     obvious.  Whereas your archaeological theoretical basis will show up
     in other areas, such as your pattern for deciding where to open the
     next unit when you're in the field, or which way to go with the
     statistical analysis when you're in the lab.

     "Why" is way on down the road of hypothesis, and depends on so many
     other assumptions about the records that in many cases it would be the
     first to change with the discovery of a new document that pertains to
     your site, or the recognition that one you had and dismissed actually
     refers to your place.  Still, we all have to offer our best
     interpretation of why a site was there, why it changed, why it was
     abandoned.

     Jake