Given my own rotten spelling, I would be the last to argue that errata
need to be published for minor typographic errors. My concern is only
with factual errors.

I would hope, that any professional, RPA member or not, would correct
any known errors before submitting a report. To do any less would be
clearly unethical. But none of us is perfect, and we all at least
occasionally make mistakes. Matthew Steiner, and others, are correct
that when one is dealing with a paradigm or a major theory, subsequent
work can (and often does) result in a paradigm change, rejection of a
theory, or proposal of a new theory.

It is his second example that I am really more concerned with. It is
precisely, as stated by John Parker, because reports become "historical
documents" that I raise the issue. When it is just one more CRM report
dealing with X type of site, there may not be a need for a formal
correction. Here if someone is researching similar sites, the erroneous
material will appear as an anomaly and will be questioned. The
anomalous data may be rejected because it is obviously incorrect, or
the researcher may contact the author to check it out. But, i would
argue, as the number of similar sites decreases, the need for
correction grows. Otherwise the incorrect material is likely to skew
any future research, because it is very likely to be accepted and
perpetuated in the literature.

On Dec 1, 2004, at 11:18 AM, John Parker wrote:

> James,
>
> If the information that made the "old report" incorrect became known
> after
> the original report was published (or filed), then I don't think there
> is
> any "responsibility" to file an errata... the fact that the old report
> is
> incorrect serves as a historical document itself.  If the information
> was
> known before the report was filed, then a "registered professional
> archaeologist (RPA)" should file an errata.  However, there is no
> enforcement to require such an activity if the person is not a RPA.
> In that
> case, they need not follow any professional guidelines.
>
> John Parker
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. John W. Parker
> Registered Professional Archaeologist
> www.tcsn.net\sloarchaeology
> -------------------------------------------------------

On Dec 1, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Matthew Sterner wrote:

> This IS an interesting question brought up by James. Murky, yes, but
> let's
> not lose perspective here. We all want to believe that we don't
> actually
> make mistakes, but, as James so painfully pointed it out, we sometimes
> do
> present misleading or incorrect information in our reports. Aside from
> the
> jokes about the distribution of the typical CRM report, the
> incorporation of
> an errata after the distribution of the volume is generally not even
> worth
> discussing.
>
> But let's look to other fields, say math or science, for guidance.
> Every
> time a scientific theorem or precept is negated or proved wrong, it
> doesn't
> necessarily discount the other merits of the book, manuscript, or
> report
> that might contain the misinformation. We generally just accept the
> information as outdated or incorrect and move on.
>
> When the playing field is narrowed, say you write the only definitive
> work
> on Captain Charles Selin Davis, 147th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry
> Company G, and in your work you present misinformation . . . different
> ball
> game. As we all see, here is where it truly does get dizzying! Errata,
> reprints, journal publications correcting the error, I suppose you
> could
> try. But at what time and expense? Perhaps we just have to embrace the
> horror and hope someone else will catch and correct our mistake in the
> next
> definitive work on Captain Charles Selin Davis, 147th Pennsylvania
> Volunteer
> Infantry Company G!
>
> MSTC (my 'skewed' two cents)
>
> Matthew Sterner