An interesting response.
When we do archeological research we address individual specific situations
and contexts with research design but we are also imho obligated to present
our observations in such a way as to facilitate cross cultural, local,
national and world wide comparison.
While not directly related to the individual inhabitant of the site or
structure being investigated it is still important to describe site
structures in terms of their relationships to others.
As I walk around in my cape cod suburb all the houses are the same, most of
the functions are the same, most of the incomes are the same. Artifact
choices vary with individual taste and fluctuations in income.
They are all domestic sites.
Trouble is that they don’t all look alike at all. Curation, cleaning of
yards, arrangement of objects all vary but they fall into types quite
easily.
There are spectrums or variables which range from clean to messy, sparse to
cluttered, mowed-overgrown and perhaps others.
From most archeological reports I have seen I would get a simple assessment
of function and date and economics- yet important community dynamics are
reflected in the place an archeological structure finds itself on the
variables.
Trust me I have served as community association president for several years.
Once I took a picture book of Ariel photos of houses and communities of a
wide variety of cultures. I took many different ones and combined it into a
composite image. That is what we are dealing with. No community is truly
uniform-homogenous at some level important splits can be documented and
those splits have the potential to represent cultural fault lines which will
illustrate change.
I live in a cape code in a neighborhood of the same. No lawn just trees, art
environment not just classic garden gnomes, the only one in the entire
place. My archeological structures have resulted in many dynamic cultural
interactions and status changes over time. Cultural dynamic is oft shown in
the differences or personalization of archeological structures. But you wont
see them if you just call them all the same and forget to look.
If we are interested in anthropology we need to get beyond statement of
basics only
This does not have to mean more money or all that much more time but only
requires description of a few more dimensions and the construction of
typologies of site structural elements over time.
Such enhanced description of essential material attributes is important for
all levels of investigation.
Not all site contexts will yield information at this level of sophistication
so we have to apply it as often as possible to catch what we can.
Yes it may not be required. Yes it may not be funded to go the extra mile
but when you know these dimensions are out there is it ethical to ignore
them and to excavate sites to produce only a marginally useful account?
Conrad Bladey
Professional Archeologist
Peasant
-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Daniel (KYTC)
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question
Sorry, my response was directed at the level of your question. What sort of
specifics would you like in regards to your general complaint?
For one thing, I'm not too concerned about neighbors or other locals or
another site - I'm concerned about multiple occupations on a single site. If
we're talking about historic period occupations and I have three families
that inhabited a site over a period of 100 years, it's critical to know how
the assemblages from those three families (with potential diverse ethnic and
economic backgrounds) will be distinguished one from the other. If a
research question is directed at a site through the use of the entire
assemblage for that site, rather than by separation between occupations, the
question is in all likelihood invalid. This level of fine-grained analysis
can get at changes in site structure as well - if features that suggest
specific activities can be dated to individual families, we can see change
to, say, market access in an area that is becoming more urban over time.
Daniel B. Davis
Archaeologist Coordinator
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Division of Environmental Analysis
200 Mero Street
Frankfort, KY 40622
(502) 564-7250
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of sent
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question
there is a lot of a spectrum in "what kind?"
its not enough to say "kitchen" "domestic" "industrial"
one has to split those to get anywhere above low level discussion which is
insufficient imho
in other words in domestic site- have you done the right description to
separate one neighbor from another or another group of locals
yes I found a kitchen our house or barn or factory is next to useless for
all but presence or absence work but all presence or absence work needs to
describe site structures sufficiently even if presence or absence is the
question of the moment.
Conrad Bladey
Peasant
Professional Archeologist
-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Daniel (KYTC)
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question
I usually wait for an evaluation or a mitigation before coming up with a
research design. For mitigations, I require testable hypotheses with the
means necessary to answer research question clearly spelled out - as in how
many, what kind, what age, required feature and artifact types, etc.
Daniel B. Davis
Archaeologist Coordinator
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Division of Environmental Analysis
200 Mero Street
Frankfort, KY 40622
(502) 564-7250
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carrig,
Charles - NRCS, Casper, WY
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question
It should be as simple as writing a research design grounded in the
quantitative with learned questions asked. Instead, we all too often see the
lackadaisical generalities that in themselves are not answered with the
report.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of sent
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question
At a point not doing requisite science moves one closer and closer to
unscientific pothunters. We don’t need that. State of the art requirements
and I mean beyond presence or albescence research designs would not create
any grey areas. The scientific high ground must be maintained. As science
progresses so should reporting and analysis. From what I see in average
reports this has not happened. It needs to. no excuse for it not to be If we
as professionals want to be given priority in life to access. It is like my
doctor-he needs to be current or not at all. Seeing archeological reports
little changed after 30 some years casts a great shadow.
Conrad Bladey
Peasant
Professional Archeologist
-----Original Message-----
From: geoff carver
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ethics question
Not just firms; also state services cutting budgets, cutting staff. Parks
Canada provides a good, recent example. Also a few interesting cases here in
Germany.
-----Original Message-----
I suspect that attitude has developed, though, by firms being asked to cut
budgets to a bare minimum. When the governing agencies and clients are
strapped for cash, that's naturally going to affect how the work is done and
it doesn't usually leave much room for deeper research. It's unfortunate in
my opinion, as it severely limits the types of research that are funded in
this realm. I always appreciate firms who use their own funds to do
additional research on the side and present their findings at conferences,
etc. It's not always easy to make that happen.
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely
for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message
or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law
and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the
email immediately.
|
