>As I have said before, an archaeologist is a generalist or he is nothing.
>
I don't know if I have missed something here but it seems to me that Ned
has pretty specifically stated that he believes that historic archaeology
is a specific study of technology and change in material culture.  I don't
believe for a moment that this is a generalist type of study of culture,
history, anthropology, or anything else.  It seems to me that if you
establish a theoretical position you should back it up, you know, have a
little gumption to back up your nastiness.  I don't agree with this
position but I don't have a problem with other folks having other views.  I
do have a problem when people make clear statements and then turn around
and contradict them. I believe that continuity is important, and if you
change your theoretical position you should explain why.
                Lon