The First Scientific Tool of Man, 31(3-4)

porated extensive conclusions for personally written
reports. In this way we have tried to provide Bulletin
readers with more meaningful reports than might
otherwise have resulted.
Up to this point a statement of facts has served
to open this important subject for further discussion.
And there seems to be a call for this, since in some
archaeological site reports found in other publications,
writers appear to disagree with our point of view.
Mter making a few general observations in a short
discussion of the evidence, they may close with some
such statement as: We will have to await further
work at the site before a more definite conclusion can
be reached. We do not mean to say that in some cases
an adequate review of the evidence is not presented.
Rather, that too often in the conclusion, the writer is
willing to resort to a delay., awaiting appearance of
further recoveries as an excuse for saying as little as
possible.
Looked at as we see it, any site, no matter how
insignificant from the standpoint of recovered artifacts,
has a story to tell. What is required is a determination
to study the evidence that is available with
serious intent, and as it may relate to discoveries made
at other comparable sites. For, it is the duty of the
excavator, alone or in collaboration with experienced
assistance, to give the reader an interpretation of the
recovered artifacts and features acquired first hand
THE PURPOSE OF EXCAVATING
at the site. In this way a start is made that provides
an opportunity for further discussion in reaching for
the truth. Without this initial interpretation, reader
interest is stifled and beneficial results are cut short.
For a writer to avoid comprehensive hypotheses
in concluding the report of a site on the excuse of lack
of sufficient evidence seems totally inexcusable. An
adequate interpretation of the available evidence can,
and should be made. To do otherwise is to make the
work of excavating and writing of the report appear
futile. It seems plain to us that the long man-hours
and eHort expended on recovery and reporting of the
evidence deserves nothing short of a well-conceived
conclusion, in which the probable actions of the site
occupants and makers of the recovered artifacts are
envisioned. Unless we go further than a mere description
of the recoveries with no thought as to their human
connection, achaeological advance tends to become
throttled. For, after all, the purpose of excavating
consists not only in recovery of the products of
man's ingenuity, but, above all, in learning from them
as much as possible about the people who occupied
the site, their customs, their migratory movements if
any, and all else that may have contributed to their
survival.
Bronson Museum,
August 1969