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.

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.

GPS Units

Hmm, is sub-meter accuracy really worth the an extra 2 grand? I say no most of the time.