Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 27 Sep 1994 20:12:38 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Kenneth:
What I was saying really doesn't fit your statement. What I
was really concerned about was the idea of archaeology as an Easter Egg
hunt. What I mean is the perception that archaeology is simply about the
collection of cute and curious objects, ie "pot-hunters"(or in this case,
Listerine Bottle-Hunters :>). Collection is a tool, but not the whole
toolkit. . Also, I'm not sure what you mean about
being top-heavy on analysis, when you could also make a claim that
archaeology places too much emphasis on "collecting" to the point of
distraction, in some cases.
...Truth is after all a moving target.
Hairs to split,
John Buckler and pieces that don't fit.
University of MD, College Park How can anybody be enlightened?
[log in to unmask] Truth is after all so poorly lit.
-Neal Peart
On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Actually I don't think archeaology should be worried about its emphisis
> on collections. If I seperate those fields concerned with collecting data
> for its own sake and those which only analyize data, I must say I am more
> impressed with the conclusions produced by fields which value the accumulation
> of information. Some fields are top heavy and are concerned too much with
> analysis and not enough with amassing tons of data (to analize) first.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> [log in to unmask]
>
|
|
|