In an era of fake news and alternative facts, archaeologists need to think carefully about what it takes to make an effective argument and how best to train students to do so. While the unfettered enthusiasm for positivism and science evinced by some in the 1960s and 70s is rare in the wake of post-processual critiques, archaeological interpretations of the past are and must still be evidence-based. Interpretations of the past originate in the archaeological evidence, but the meaning of the material remains requires interpretation. Ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology provide the two most important pillars for interpreting archaeology’s material evidence and the best prepared archaeologists should be able to both consume and produce ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology. Understanding what percentages of macro-botanical remains actually mean depends upon a knowledge of differential preservation. Asserting that a tool was used for scraping hide demands an understanding of how hides are scraped and how patterns of use-wear result. Arguing from fingerprints that children made a figurine can only be done based on a knowledge of fingerprint metrics and the way they change over a life course. The basic research for all of these interpretations is experimental archaeology. Estimating population sizes from architectural remains requires an understanding of the relationship between architectural spaces and their occupants and how this may vary with context. Making a case for increasing stratification using grave goods demands arguments about the relationship between personal identity and funerary ceremony among other things. These kinds of complex cultural interpretations require an understanding of the way human behaviors and culture affect the material world and are ideally based on the research of ethnoarchaeologists. Doing first-rate research in either ethnoarchaeology or experimental archaeology requires a grounding in archaeology, but perspectives and skills from other disciplines as well. Since most ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology is done by archaeologists, graduate schools should be providing students not just with the theory and method of archaeology, but also with the tools needed to do first-rate ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology and to use the results in their research. In his commentary on Edwin Wilmson’s retrospective, David Killick (this issue) notes that the kind of 4-field training that Wilmsen received in the 1960s as a University of Arizona graduate student has largely disappeared. Today some graduate schools do not demand broad accountability in even one field, much less four. This change from broad to specialized training may well be logical in light of the increasing literature accumulating in every area of study and the pressure to have students finish their degrees in a reasonable amount of time, but it is a distinct loss for archaeology. This is particularly true when archaeologists are not assured a strong background in cultural anthropology. Surely, if archaeologists want to write about the cultures of the past, they should at minimum be well-grounded in the cultures of the present. The ramifications for ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology are just as serious, if not more so. Neither ethnoarchaeological nor many experimental studies that do not start with

中文翻译：

---

培训民族考古学家和实验考古学家

在假新闻和替代事实泛滥的时代，考古学家需要仔细思考如何才能提出有效的论点，以及如何最好地训练学生这样做。虽然 1960 年代和 70 年代的一些人对实证主义和科学的无拘无束的热情在后过程批评之后很少见，但对过去的考古解释仍然并且必须以证据为基础。对过去的解释源于考古证据，但材料遗存的意义需要解释。民族考古学和实验考古学为解释考古学的物质证据提供了两个最重要的支柱，准备最充分的考古学家应该能够同时消费和生产民族考古学和实验考古学。了解大型植物遗骸的实际含义取决于差异保存的知识。断言使用工具刮皮需要了解生皮是如何刮皮的以及使用磨损模式是如何产生的。从指纹论证儿童制作小雕像只能基于指纹指标的知识以及他们在生命过程中的变化方式来完成。所有这些解释的基础研究是实验考古学。从建筑遗迹估计人口规模需要了解建筑空间与其居住者之间的关系，以及这种关系如何随环境而变化。为使用坟墓物品增加分层需要争论个人身份和葬礼之间的关系等。这些复杂的文化解释需要了解人类行为和文化对物质世界的影响方式，理想情况下是基于民族考古学家的研究。在民族考古学或实验考古学方面进行一流的研究需要考古学的基础，但也需要来自其他学科的观点和技能。由于大多数民族考古学和实验考古学是由考古学家完成的，研究生院应该为学生提供的不仅仅是考古学的理论和方法，还拥有进行一流的民族考古学和实验考古学并将结果用于他们的研究所需的工具。在他对埃德温·威尔姆森回顾展的评论中，大卫·基利克（本期）指出，威尔姆森在 1960 年代作为亚利桑那大学研究生接受的那种四场训练已经基本消失。今天，一些研究生院甚至不要求在一个领域承担广泛的责任，更不用说四个领域了。鉴于每个研究领域积累的文献越来越多，以及让学生在合理的时间内完成学位的压力，这种从广泛培训到专业培训的转变可能是合乎逻辑的，但这对考古学来说是一个明显的损失。当考古学家不能保证文化人类学的强大背景时，尤其如此。一定，如果考古学家想写过去的文化，他们至少应该以现在的文化为基础。民族考古学和实验考古学的后果同样严重，甚至更严重。无论是民族考古学还是许多实验研究都不是从