The Basic Needs of American Archeology

Abstract

1) Field operations should be conducted by trained field men with academic as well as field experience; this should insure the keeping of accurate records, and include clear comprehension of the problem under attack. 2) Supplies such as surveying instruments, cameras, tools, and storage and transportation facilities be available. The staff be given to experiment, cross-check records, and to do other such work. 3) Laboratory units should be conducted by trained technicians and pertinent allied sciences be brought to bear in order to insure the most complete and accurate analyses of material. 4) Accurate mapping of sites and environment, of vertical and horizontal records, and planned site nomenclature, are indispensable. 5) Methods of excavation must be conducted in a manner which promises to disclose all available evidence on formation and structure, and to preserve all data on stratigraphy, age, succession, cultural and historical activities and cultural processes. 6) All of the foregoing activities are nullified unless followed by prompt publication. Certainly every archaeologist will agree that all these are basic needs and indispensable to the serious attack of any problem in American prehistory, and that Dr Guthe has stated them clearly. However, upon reading the article I was struck by the fact that there is another basic need for which there is not as yet any solution. This is suggested by Dr Guthe in the sentence about the satisfactory applications of laboratory methods . . . to facilitate definition of types, cultural synthesis, and broad cultural comparisons. It may be of moment to elaborate upon this point. Is it possible for American archaeology ever to solve any broad problems in time succession, cultural and historical activities and cultural processes until it develops a common trait terminology, a common language concerning artifact types and the criteria by which they may be determined? Can cultural synthesis and broad cultural comparisons be achieved unless there is a general system by which the many workers in this field can be sure whether or not they are dealing with similar or dissimilar culture traits? Considering the time, energy, and money continually expended in excavating, in gathering greater and greater masses of specimens and more field data of every sort, it is a source of wonder that so little attention has been