I write a lot of EIS and EA documents and the legal standard for these
documents is that you must cite the original source. Some agencies go so
far as to say you need to provide if not the whole reference, then at
least the cover page of the reference in the administrative record for
the document. Anything less than this is not legally defensible. We
expect a very high standard of research from any sub consultants that we
use as well. If you cannot provide proof that you have actually done the
legwork and research for your document, it isn't legally defensible and
can be challenged in court. I don't think it hurts anyone to
periodically re-check the 'standard' sources.

Sandra Pentney, MA, RPA
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
401 West A Street, Suite 775, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-696-0578 Ext: 4903|   Fax: 619-696-0578
[log in to unmask]   |   www.ene.com
         
Celebrating 40 Years of Green Solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane
Brown
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scholarly standards

Having spent several years editing and annotating (with two colleagues)
a heretofore unpublished manuscript, I must support going back to the
original sources.  Accuracy is paramount, and by looking at the
original, you may find more pertinent information that obtains to your
work.  Carl is right.  Too many breadcrumbs.  As a historian and an
archaeologist, I could not ethically do otherwise if the original source
can be obtained.



Jane L. Brown
Anthropology & Sociology
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, NC 28723

Office telephone: 828.227.2444
FAX: 828.227.7061
________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl Steen
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scholarly standards

I have been complaining about this for years, especially regarding
archaeologist's use of secondary, tertiary and even greater removed
historical sources (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...




Carl Steen




-----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?




--


-----------------------------------------------------
To report this message as spam, please FORWARD it to
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------