Mike Scholl wrote:

>The technological achievement of a particular
>machine or ceramic vase may be appealing on a certain
>level, but it's from (to use David's words again) an
>understanding of the "past behavior, social
>relationships, inequality, politics, etc." that those
>objects take meaning and speak to the present human
>condition.

Begging your pardon, Mike.

Under certain restricted circumstances, an archaeological project may,
indeed, be purely anthropological. But in many cases, if not most, the real
benefit to be derived from the project has nothing whatever to do with the
subject matter of anthropology. Indeed, most historical archaeological
projects could use a stiff dose of interpretation from other disciplines.
These other disciplines are not merely the "certain level" of technical
knowledge you so condescendingly acknowledge; they often represent the very
core knowledge that we are exploring.

Some of the best professional archaeology isn't anthropological at all.

Take, for example, the highly respected archaeological journal, Historical
Metallurgy. At least half the articles in the current issue  (Vol. 32, No.
2) are about excavations or metallic artifacts, written by archaeologists
with impeccable credentials from American and British universities. The
archaeology in this journal is about technology, and not about social
relationships, inequality, politics, or anything else of the sort.

In different fields, I am sure there are other perfectly respectable
archaeological journals that have no need to tip their hats to
anthropology.

Archaeology can be history of technology just as easily and credibly as it
is anthropology, and the anthropologist who neglects the other
archaeology-related disciplines is being arrogant and negligent while
rendering a grave disservice to the community at large while he impedes the
spread of useful knowledge.



  Archaeologists readily identify the
  worst of the profession. We agree that     _(____)_
  the worst incompetents share 3 attributes:/        |
     1. They have fresh ideas;       _===__/   Baby  ||
     2. They write coherent prose;  | ___       ___  ||
     3. They are not in the room. o||| . \_____/ . \_|
  ____________________________   _ _  \_/_______\_/_____
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html