In a message dated 97-01-20 14:32:28 EST, [log in to unmask] (L. D Mouer)
writes:
<< This is yet another reason why we cannot allow people who have eschewed
the
scholarly dimension of archaeology for the civil-service dimension to
dictate what makes a site significant. We cannot allow those who do
not attend scholarly conferences, engage in research and/or teaching,
or keep up with the literature to make decisions based on their
judgements of significance, ethnicity, or other such matters.
The soapbox is now free.
Dan M.
>>
You open a very interesting topic here Dan, one that, perhaps, many people
have avoided, especially those in the CRM private sector who depend on those
civil service types for granting of permits and review of reports. We often
tend to avoid such topics as individuals for obvious reasons.
While I don't want to paint all of the archaeologists employed by the Federal
or State governments that way, I certainly agree that too many of them (most
that I know) have abdicated many of their responsibilities as professionals.
Keeping up with the literature (and not just keeping up with the latest
local lithic scatter report or local cave excavation) and what is going on on
the prominent internet discussion groups (this forum has become quite
important for the field) is not a high priority. Also, many never attend
professional meetings. Now, this is not to say there aren't many in
academia, and many in the private sector who have fallen into the same trap,
but those people are not reviewing reports, either, and calling shots as to
site significance, eligibility and, in many ways, what types of issues should
be important and pursued in our field.
Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah
|