My apologies for kicking over our anthill.  Also for misattributing the
"Binford" quote.  I guess I'm hardly a historian--Binford quotes this in
his 1962 article, "Archaeology as Anthropology," from Willey and Phillips,
1958.  The perils of secondary sources, especially those retrieved from
memory.

I'm much more in agreement with those on the list, lately (Mike Polk and
Diane Dismukes) who tend toward defining archaeology as anthropology from
the questions we ask.  Historically, in the U.S., we have, and do, tend to
ask questions about people, past lifeways, past technologies.  We also
agree that past technologies are inseparably connected to the lifeways of
the people who created and used them, a situation that can be defined as
the human ecological niche (so would Steward or White say), or, more
simply, the human condition.  The basic premise of archaeology is that we
can "get at" past lifeways, as a means toward answering anthropological
questions, due to this fundamental relationship.  Yet, I would hardly
contradict Ned Heite--this is a difficult road to travel, and only the most
thorough understanding of material culture will let us get to this level of
analysis, and all too many ambitious projects founder upon data that are
not sufficient to support that level of analysis.

If we're chasing our tails, here, let's approach this from the other side.
What is anthropology, that archaeology, historically, in the U.S., aspires
to be?  Any definitions?




At 10:16 AM 8/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Did Scholl dismiss other disciplines as less worthy, or just state that
they weren't anthropology? You yourself stated in a previous e-mail that
archeology could benefit from "a stiff dose of interpretation from other
disciplines (bold mine)". so by making that statement you recognize that
the pure study of the history of technology for its sake alone is not
within the discipline of anthropology, a sub field of which is archeology.
>
>It doesn't mean these other disciplines are less worthy - just means they
aren't archeology.
>
>I am unable to accept that there is any professional archeology that
"isn't anthropological at all".Ooxymoronic in my book.
>
>Diane Dismukes
>