Must agree with Bob Schuyler that it is a mistake to identify archaeology as
a mere technique.

Rather, may I suggest that it is an approach or a state of mind, and that
approach may be informed by a thorough grounding in the social sciences.

One can do archaeology without exhumation. Refer to the first couple of
issues of the journal Historical Archaeology for entirely too much ink
spilled on that issue. Archaeology is not the technique of lifting things
out of the ground.

Nor is archaeology a quest for truth, whatever that is, exclusively for
purposes defined by anthropology textbooks.

Historical archaeology is not history, either. When we attack the
documentary resource, we ask different questions from the questions
historians ask.

There's a well-known set of ledgers here in Delaware that has been used at
least three times to my knowledge, with three totally different outcomes,
because each user was asking different questions. That's why manuscript
librarians keep all those 'used' manuscripts that have already been
published; every user brings new approaches.

An archaeological historian (a job title I once actually held) is unlikely
to be recognized as such by the historical profession. Indeed, an
archaeological historian, or historical archaeologist, is more likely to
commune with historical geographers than anyone else.

Let's say we have deeds to a particular property. We give an identical set
of copies to a paralegal, a surveyor, a geographer, an
archaeologically-oriented historian, and an academic historian. I would
suggest that, of these five, the geographer and the
archaeologically-oriented historian will come up with similar findings, and
derive similar questions for further research.

The surveyor and the paralegal will regard the deeds as legal documents, and
they'll give you a fine chain of title. The academically-oriented historian
will be flummoxed and complain that there are no personal papers in with the
deeds.

The Park Service suggests in a National Register bulletin (16, I believe,
but I'm too lazy to look it up) that we should perform an archaeological
examination of standing structures.  I have performed archaeological
examinations of working industrial sites, without actually touching
anything. Historical metallurgists use archaeological investigations all the
time, and publish them sometimes in archaeological journals and sometimes in
journals of the history of metallurgy.

So I can't accept the idea that archaeology is part of anthropology, because
it may be a tool in other endeavors, under many different academic
disciplines. The flavor of archaeology may differ if it is housed in
classics, or geography, or history, or metallurgy, but I can't see that the
archaeologist must wear a placard that says "I am an anthropologist,"
wherever he or she goes.

Ned Heite ([log in to unmask])