Dr. McKern's recent remarks on “Taxonomy and the Direct Historical Approach” serve, though no doubt unintentionally, as a red herring to my plea for the importance of the direct historical approach. Since much attention has been devoted recently to the matter of research tools in anthropology and the social sciences, I should like to comment briefly on what seems to me increasing confusion of tools, methods, approaches, and theories in archaeology. For I do not conceive the direct historical approach to be a tool. And I am not wholly clear how the taxonomic method is a tool adapted to further a historical objective.

There are two general levels or types of procedure in archaeology: collecting and interpreting data. Much is said about the permanent solidity of sacred fact and the ephemeral nature of theory. But facts are totally without significance and may even be said not to exist without reference to theory.