Theory, Prehistoric Land Use and Archaeology

It seems to me that archaeologists use many terms and concepts which are not really defined. This is particularly true in CRM archaeology. In fact, I would say it is rampant in CRM archaeology. I often feel like much of what I read is a bunch of terms and phrases strung together, without a real feel for what those terms actually mean or how they are used.

Great Quote

I should like to record an overwhelming impression that many students [of prehistory] are but slightly reformed antiquarians. To one who is a layman in these highly specialized realms there seems a great deal of obsessive wallowing in detail of and for itself. No one can feel more urgently than this writer the imperative obligation of anthropologists [particularly archaeologists] to set their descriptions in such a rich context of detail that they can properly be used for comparative purposes. Yet proliferation of minutiae is not its own justification (Kluckhohn 1940:42).

From Introduction, by Lee Lyman and Michael J. O’Brien. In Method and Theory in American Archaeology by Godon R. Willey and Philip Philips, 1958. Reprinted 2001. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

I think I need to read Kluckhohn.

Kettle Falls

I am heading up to Kettle Falls, Washington today. Was invited to a ceremony by the Colville Tribe. As I worked along the Upper Columbia every spring from about 1997 to 2003, it will be like going home again. It was definitely one of my great jobs in archaeology, although I wish I knew then what I know now. Working up there was like archaeology camp, archaeology all day, every day, with nothing else to do but drink (at least for the crews). The area has been built up these days, but back then there was no or limited internet and cell phone connections were very sporadic. Houses were scattered and not many people were around. There was no one to bother you, no way to really get a hold of you. It was wonderful. I think crews today don’t know what they are missing by having technology.

Thin Archaeology

Saw a great talk yesterday. Ken Ames repeated his NWAC keynote address for a PSU audience. The talk was worth it both times, although he did have more of a rush going for the first one, which is hard to recreate.

The thing that struck me was the idea of a “thin” understanding of the past. That is, our knowledge is often dependent on a few sites or a small amount of data. It appears robust and detailed, but one new discovery can change everything.