No I think what he is saying is that if only archaeologists use our  
data we are marginalized and unimportant. Assuming David is right,  
and I have certainly seen evidence that archaeology is ignored by  
many historians, there are a number of possible reasons:

1- We are not marketing our product very well. This assumes that we  
have something to offer the other disciplines and they just have not  
recognized it yet.

2- The other disciplines have examined what we do and have decided it  
is useless for their purposes. In which case perhaps we need to look  
at "repackaging".

3- The other disciplines are stupid, or blinkered. While the later is  
certainly true of some practitioners, I find it difficult to believe  
that it is true of entire disciplines that could make use of  
archaeologically derived data. On the other hand I recently read a  
"scholarly" work on the use of slaves in the American iron industry.  
The author managed to get a considerable amount of both the  
historical background and technology wrong. While he  acknowledge the  
assistance of a veritable who's who of historians, he didn't bother  
to consult any archaeometallurgists.

4- We aren't especially relevant. Something I am loath to admit, as I  
have spent a considerable part of my life as an archaeologist. But if  
true this may be attributable to a number of causes, including that  
we have marginalized ourselves. And all of us will have to admit that  
there have been lots of papers we have sat through and articles we  
have tried to read that were pretty irrelevant.

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]



On Oct 14, 2006, at 13:18, Ron May wrote:

> So, the gist of what you are saying, David, is that because Nobel  
> Prize
> winning scholars do not use our archaeology data that we are  
> marginalized and
> unimportant? Is this what you are saying?
>
> Ron May
> Legacy 106, Inc.