OK maybe I'm getting ready to learn something here but it seems to me that the history of technology is anthropology. Technology is created by humans and the changes in technology are based on choices humans make in response to their environment. Examining the history of technology, from pointed sticks to computers, is examining the choices humans have made about what they need in their infrastructural repertoire to interface with the physical and cultural environment in which they live.

Articles in professional journals reflect the specialization necessary in today's world. No one individual can know everything there is to know about all aspects of human activity. I don't think the archeologists who study specific areas of human activity like the history of technology, or faunal analysis or lithic analysis are neglecting the anthropological connection, anymore than archeologists who focus on the culture process are neglecting the history of technological process. But to say that archeology is not anthropology because archeological specialists focus on gaining in depth knowledge of specific artifact types is like saying physicians who specialize in hip replacements aren't interesting in the human patient who receives their services.

Archeology is Anthropology -Since Anthropology is the study of humans that gives us a pretty broad range of pursuits that fit the required framework. When was the last time that some archeologist out there studied something - anything - that did not advance our knowledge of the human animal in some way. Authors of certain journal articles may not always be able to take us all the way anthropologically, but other archeologists, myself included read the more technical articles and apply the knowledge to our study of culture process. You can't see the big picture unless you have all those little pixels.


Diane Dismukes