Each of us certainly have different opinions about what archaeology is.
I am an archaeologist because I am an interdisciplinarian. There are
times when I would not survive without my background in geology and
biology. This is what makes archaeology interesting, stimulating and
challenging. We have to know a little about everything to function as
archaeologists-essentially Jack’s of all trades. We cannot be masters of
all aspects of our trade, but each of us does specialize in some aspects
of our field.
I disagree with Ned Heite a little in that I don’t think it is possible
to ever completely remove some aspects of anthropology from archaeology
even when dealing with technical matters. Because I focus on industrial
mining archaeology, I understand what he is saying. Industrial
archaeology does not apply anthropological theory as well as other
sub-specialties, but it does not mean that we cannot do so or that we
are not asking questions that are anthropologically based. Of course, we
could concentrate on the metallurgy of nails at a site, but in doing so
don’t we ask questions about the methods used to produce the nails and
why specific ores or equipment were used in their production? Why was a
furnace placed where it was placed? What was being produced? This is
anthropology. Granted, the questions being asked may not be related to
the “popular” theories of today, but they are legitimate questions by
themselves. It is not a bad thing for archaeologists to publish in
non-anthropological journals. After all, we all need information about
the material remains that we find and articles discussing specific
artifacts are welcome. What would most of us do without descriptions of
tin cans and dates associated with specific manufacturing styles? We
need the information historians of iron making technology can give us
and we need to publish articles other archaeologists can easily access
about the history and chronology of artifacts and the technology that
produced them. In my experience, articles such as these compile
information from many sites and from historical research making them
anthropological in nature.
To carry this one step further-I agree that we need research questions
before going into the field, but if an archaeologist examines a site
with only those research questions, they risk missing important
information. In some cases, it could be analogous to local a pothunter’s
habit of throwing projectile points etc. away because his/her interest
is only in beads. It is nice to have legitimate research questions
prepared beforehand, but it does not always work that way in the real
world where archaeology is practiced for the sake of required
mitigation, not to further understanding or the field. Even when we do
have the luxury of being able to do good research and the time to
develop good research questions, the site changes our perspectives and
our questions. It would be wonderful if we could all practice as we were
taught in graduate school.
Tim, one thing you have to remember, and I am finding out on a daily
basis is that linguistics and physical anthropology taught us about
people and their cultures. It gave a cloudy window into the mind that
helps us when we are in the field.

Susan Rigby, University of Nevada, Reno