This depends on how crucial the reference is. If the original is not or
cannot be examined, it should suffice to say, "according to Heidegger, as
understood by Jones" or something like that. However, if the information is
important, the original should be dealt with directly. Most researchers
have probably encountered something like what I just experienced in doing
historical background research: I have been dealing with a statement
regarding the location of a site which has repeated for decades in history
books, newspaper articles, archaeological reports and even mapped on
archaeological site forms. I tracked the source of this statement back to a
trusted historian who, I found, completely misread or ignored the original
document he was citing. Thus the first person to cite the historian, did
not check the historian's original source, but repeated the error, and it
was repeated so many times in so many sources that it became "fact." All it
took to determine where the site actually had been was to read the original
source! The reason citations are required in good scholarship, is not to be
a pain in the ass, but precisely so that scholars can check the work of
other scholars or not-so-scholarly writers.
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff
carver
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: scholarly standards
I've just been reading someone's PhD dissertation, where second-hand
references are made to Foucault, Heidegger, Husserl and a philosopher by the
name of McTaggart (about A- and B-series time).
None of these seems to have been consulted, just referenced via other
archaeological texts. I've noticed basically the same thing happening with
references to Lyell, Darwin, Hutton, Steno, etc., and wondered what other
people think about this. Should we take some other archaeologist's word
about what Heidegger meant, or even what was published in a possibly bad
translation of Heidegger, or should we expect archaeologists, as scholars
and as people who dig things up, to go to the original source, if only to
confirm that the accuracy of the secondary source?
|