ok..here goes...just cant help myself I guess..
until a famous economist defined the terms, most "archies" were like most of the people in here...relic hunters, scavengers. perhaps a rudimentary education, but no basis of identification or placing an artifact in the proper context...
placing items in their proper context is the only reason an archie digs. unless it is salvage archeology, saving a piece from certain destruction.
this economist defined how objects were made, who made them, who owned the resources to make the object.
when an object is found, and it is associated with other objects within a time line defined by some arbitrary or natural period accepted by other educated persons...this object can then be placed within the culture.
this placing of an artifact, in the culture, who made it, who used it, who owned it, who owned the materials to manufacture...defines the objects use in the culture...
storage containers about a hearth define a typical female site...other object found in the immediate area can then be associated with the female site.
points and bone materials showing activity of being worked, can define a male area...or not...dependent upon the culture.
the association to time periods and other artifacts allow anthropologists the ability to create a model of the culture...re create the life and times of the people...
to many anthroplogists and museum scientists, the provenance is the most important value....not the gold for gold sake, not jade for the price per gram...
association to a period of time and other objects.
