This issue is more complex than it seems. Normally we would all say 
we must go back to the original source, read it, and reference it. 
However, a great deal of knowledge works its way into our general 
views and definitions of the subject and topics within a specific 
field. We could end up with a pedantic mess of everything being so 
over referenced that no one would want to read the results. The key 
is the focus of what the current author is discussing. For example, 
if I am looking at the work of Jared Diamond and he has many internal 
references it is not necessary for me to redo all his sources as long 
as I correctly summarize his views and positions. In contrast if I am 
trying to critique Diamond then I certainly must go back to his 
original sources on which he is basing his conclusions.

On the negative side in many disciplines (especially a field like 
"ethnohistory") a younger scholar comes along and takes some fully 
accepted  statement or conclusion and traces it back many steps to 
the original source (document) only to find out the original source 
was unclear, misread or actually said the opposite of what a Swanton 
or a Wissler said decades ago. Yet their interpretation has become 
standard in the field. This canonical knowledge problem is very 
common in all "historical" disciplines.

Bob Schuyler

At 08:03 AM 7/21/2011, you wrote:
>I have been complaining about this for years, especially regarding archaeo=
>logist's use of secondary, tertiary and even greater removed historical so=
>urces (ie, Smith cites Jones, who cited Brown's interpretation of Green,=
>  which was wrong to begin with). It's so common however that I fear no one=
>  really cares...
>=20
>
>=20
>
>Carl Steen
>=20
>
>=20
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geoff carver <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thu, Jul 21, 2011 7:51 am
>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?
>
>=20