Lon Bulgrin wrote:

>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.

Apparently you missed something. Of course historical archaeology is more
than "a specific study of technology and change in material culture." My
point has been that  certain broad and important categories are typically
ignored by investigators who concentrate narrowly and exclusively on
domestic life, race, status, gender, and marxist political theory.

Jamie Brothers cited a good example of a generalist, the late John
Witthoft, who could  look with equal acuity at everything and derive an
incredibly wide range of information from all of it. He could draw examples
from diverse sources and piece them together to make a coherent point. A
conversation with that man was an adventure in time and space.

At the Phase I level, you need someone with such breadth of orientation,
who is not blinded by some research design or predictive model that rejects
anything outside its own scope. Breadth and experience don't come quickly
in this business; it takes time. Old farts rule!

  Ned Heite           _(____)_   http:
  Heite Consulting   /Baby '69|  //home.
  Camden      _===__/88" Land || dmv.com
  Delaware   | ___  Rover___  || /~eheite
           o||| . \_____/ . \_|
 _____________ \_/_______\_/___________