Peter Bleed

Do Regions Make Theory? Comments on Mitchell's Discussion of the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project

Mark Mitchell’s (Mitchell 2006) assessment of the theoretical legacy of the Smithsonian Institution’s Missouri Basin Project does not show that research in the Great Plains has made a particularly small contribution to archeological theory. The sparse population, dispersed professional community, and paucity of graduate archeology programs in the region contribute to its archeological research patterns.

Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans. James C. Chatters. 2001. Simon and Schuster, New York. 303 pp.

Indiana Jones has always been a flawed icon for modern American archaeologists. We never really had the whip thing going, and whatever adventure there may have been once, with modernization and government oversight, our discipline has become, well, routine. Discoveries we count as major most often relate to academic questions. Most tellingly, we usually end our efforts, not running from burning temples, but with earnestly delivered didactic reviews of the facts as we see them. As the archaeologist who recovered the Kennewick skeleton and brought it to the attention of the world, James Chatters can legitimately claim to have made a major discovery. He also experienced the political fury that has swirled up around this discovery at a level Leslie Stahl and other media discussants never presented. And Chatters has had long-standing interests and broad expertise in the early peopling of the New World so it is reasonable for him to offer a book that presents the Kennewick discovery in adventurous, first-person terms. At least he can try.