I applaud Craig Childs for furthering public
awareness about the destruction of archaeological sites, and agree
that archaeologists need to be more concerned about whether or not
an artifact should be collected, and what happens to it after it is
collected(HCN,
4/28/08). . But in his effort to conflate archaeological
investigation with pothunting, he makes various errors, some minor,
some more egregious. One rather substantive error is that he
apparently confuses archaeological methods with archaeological
goals. Childs contrasts the detailed recording typical of
archaeological excavations with the wanton destruction of
pothunters, but suggests that it is predominately this distinction
in methods that separates archaeologists from pothunters. He fails
to indicate that archaeological excavation is but one aspect of
archaeological research; indeed he fails to mention that
archaeology involves research at all.
Contrary to what
Childs indicates, the goal of archaeology is not simply to collect
artifacts so they can be “saved” from pothunters, development or
the ravages of time, but to learn about human behavior. The reason
that archaeologists are so methodologically meticulous is because
they seek to understand the nature of the web of interrelationships
between artifacts, the structures in which they occur, and the
landscape upon which they are found. In his accompanying editorial
comments, Jonathan Thompson suggests that archaeologists need to
“look around” to study a structure’s “geographic context” and
“learn from the descendants of those who once lived here.” He
should be comforted to know that this is exactly what
archaeologists do. Archaeologists seek understanding of the myriad
relationships between artifact, structure and landscape by
comparing what they have seen and recorded to ethnographic accounts
and information provided by Native Americans. In fact, this is one
of the main means by which archaeologists gain insight in to past
human behavior. It is unfortunate that Childs chose not to address
this goal of archaeology in his article, for if he had it would be
clear that the line between archaeological research and pothunting
is not fine, but sharply distinct.
Glenn Stuart
Tempe, Arizona
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Not so fine a line.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
