No, I'm not being an ass, but I don't... interpret my data that is. I walk around, look at stuff, write up a report, do it again the next day. So I guess I practice a Processual brand of archeology, as I think most of us in CRM do. If I had my choice I'd get paid to do other things in this field as I am very much a Post-Processualist archaeologist at heart, but I don't have much time for it. When my 40hrs are up I'm out the door.

Working in the CRM cultural backwater that I do, I do try to use alternate/multiple theoretical frameworks to "manage" the resources I encounter, but only as appropriate. The data has to suggest the framework through which it should be viewed. Really cant justify using neo-Darwinism or landscape theory on late 19th C. mass produced historical artifacts. Marxist on the other hand....

Your responses brings me to another topic, perhaps best posted underneath another heading but, how do you see the growth/establishment of Archaeology as a resource (CRM) helping or hindering the headier side of things (academia, research)? Could one survive or grow without the other? Or is the schism between professional and academic Archaeology largely unresolvable with each side viewing the other as, respectively, ivory-tower ensconced elitists and field worker wage thralls? A bit hyperbolic of course, but ya'll get the idea.  

OH COME ON

I'll bite. Just to pick an example, most of what we now know about the prehistoric Mogollon culture, and especially the Jornada branch of the Mogollon has resulted from CRM work, the intensity of which increased in the 1980s and continues to this day. This includes big projects done at White Sands Missile Range, Fort Bliss, and for numerous pipelines as well as smaller jobs done for other agencies. Land exchanges, Section 110 surveys, road improvements, reservoirs...you name it...hundreds of thousands of acres get looked at thanks to CRM.

I will throw another holy hand grenade.  

Surely a Field archaeologist is not really supposed to place any form of closed interpretation onto either a site or feature.   So, I will describe an arched structure, built of xxx   and standing  xxx high, xxx wide etc...   describe its location and the connection of other linnear features that link it on the sw and ne  etc...    when I know its a bridge, what I  should do is describe factually what is there and leave the interpretation til much later.    Too often, field archaeologists add interpretation in the field.   and this can skew the record, as one tries to fit all other evidence to match the inerpretation.   Therefore the bank must be associate with the cobbled causeway...   rather than looking at them as distinct described elements.

:)

I agree that basic, factual descriptions need to be done in the field - but even our most basic interpretations are informed by our theoretical underpinnings.  If nothing else - most of us move forward (often without realizing it) in an environmental deterministic mode of sorts - a platform of burned cobbles and bit of charcoal - usually identified as a roasting platform - because of the assumption that it was used to cook food, something we all need.  But even that most basic interpretation could be very different if our focus was on something else (we could interpret it as a ceremonial strucutre of some sort, related to prepping a body for burial (dessication), etc.  We usually look for the simplest interpretation - which usually boils down (no pun intended) to how would it have served for the basic life necessities.

On the other hand - anyone involved in writing up reports, needs to be making an attempt to tell the story of the site, not just provide a trait/artifact list of what was found.  A basic part of any CRM work done under 106 is to examine and interpret a site and get that out to the public.  That is the whole point of developing and addressing research questions as part of mitigation.  Below is an excerpt from the guidance (empahsis added by me).  Any research questions will necessitate some theoretical position - whether it is explicit (even to the author) or not.

from Section 6, of "Resolving Adverse Effects through Recovery of Significant Information from Archeological Sites" as set forth in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservations Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archeological Sites

 

… should have prepared a data recovery plan with a research design in consultation with the SHPO/THPO*and other stakeholders that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Treatment of Archeological Properties: A Handbook. The plan should specify: (a) The results of previous research relevant to the project; (b) research problems or questions to be addressed with an explanation of their relevance and importance; (c) the field and laboratory analysis methods to be used with a justification of their cost-effectiveness and how they apply to this particular property and these research needs; (d) the methods to be used in artifact, data, and other records management; (e) explicit provisions for disseminating the research findings to professional peers in a timely manner; (f) arrangements for presenting what has been found and learned to the public, focusing particularly on the community or communities that may have interests in the results . . .

Overcoming bias is a significant struggle in any project. Though, and I'm with Dmack here, essential theoretical templates are necessary for providing the framework through which data is interpreted in a way that is meaningful in an objective-driven (mitigation and/or research) project. 

I think that it would also be useful for our larger discussion within our profession stressing the useful applications of micro and macro level (possible even meta?) levels of theory at their appropriate scales of observation/investigation. 

334Arch
I have to ask, what is a "meat-and-potatoes marxist" and how is it different from marxism?  And when you are done with that, what is "anarcho-sociobiology"?

Me, I'm a marxist. 

In CRM at the survey/identification level it doesn't matter much.  It does matter some though--classifying sites for example. It kicks in more at the evaluation and mitigation level, where you need research designs.  

I would describe my "meat-and-potatos" Marxism as struggle for limited resources, informed more perhaps by Malthus than Marx, underlying the entire spectra of cultural phenomena. Really just a cute way of saying Marxist. 

The difference I (and plenty others) draw between Marxist or Marxian theory and Marxism is that the former two thoughts do not possess the political baggage of the latter branding.

I arrived at "anarcho-sociobiology" after reading a bunch of Dawkins, Wilson, et al while getting pretty heavy into Hayek, Friedman, Popper, et al (economic thinkers). Essentially, it is my belief that, fundamentally, cultural and political phenomena are expressions of inherited epigenetic patterns common to the entirety of the species. Additionally, I believe that materialist models seeking generalizing predicative or explanatory powers are ultimately useless as they fail to account for the unfathomable variables of human behavior. Don't get me wrong, I think that models are useful and necessary for a number of things, just not ultimate causal explanations.
                

Damn. From Marx to Friedman and Hayek.  That's quite a jump! :o

That is quite a jump. A mix of Marx, Malthus, and Friedman? Some of that would seem hard to reconcile.

Good point about the models, I think some of what people then and now do would really be hard to explain by any logical process.

Is that so much of a leap to take? I dunno. Any Archtheory I absorb seems just as unlikely, and yet, we must wrestle with the inherent materialism of our discipline.

I think that models are extremely useful when on is planning research or sampling strategies. Let me be clear, I do not think that it is useful for anyone undertaking any of the aforementioned daunting tasks to feel it necessary to grapple with the vagaries of human behavior. There is a hypothesis is prove or disprove, not a  grand theory of human order to construct. My problem with models stems from their adherents'
 stubborness and lack of willingness to explore.
No stress.