Timothy James Scarlett wrote:

>Let us avoid the colonial-myopic
>dislike toward the near past, and when the full report is published we
>can give the project the benefit of peer-review.

PEER REVIEW??


You call this flock of buzzards "peer review" for projects? Peer review is
an academic concept. To ask us to peer review something is like asking
General Mills for an honest critique of Kellogg's Corn Flakes.

No, I take that back.

At least General Mills probably would concede that Corn Flakes are food.

Why don't we simply forget age and state of decay as criteria for applying
archaeological techniques? Industrial archaeologists will argue
convincingly that archaeology can actually be performed on a working
factory, and I subscribe to that school. Certainly the garbage project has
produced excellent and sometimes disturbing insights, even when you can
still smell the barbecue sauce on the bones.

What makes it archaeology is the observer, not the condition of that which
is observed. If bottles with labels are better, it follows that bottles
with both labels and contents are the best.


Ned Heite  ([log in to unmask])
**************************
 Beadle Bumble was right:
 The law really is a ass!
**************************