Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 06:47:19 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Lyle Browning wrote:
>Here we disagree totally. I cannot see how any reasonably sentient
>archaeologist would bid a project about which they knew nothing and blithely
>assume they could handle it all. Phase I surveys to locate sites are one
>thing. Phase II and III work which focuses on specific sites is quite another.
No.
Phase I is the critical level, requiring the broadest knowledge and the
deepest experience. Phase I survey identifies sites and assigns them a
potential significance. To cite David Babson's example, a curious linear
feature with cinders found in a Phase I will never be examined if Phase I
investigator writes it off.
Therefore, I firmly believe that Phase I should never be assigned to anyone
but the most experienced investigator, who has a unique opportunity to set
the direction of future work.
Phase I is (or should be) the exciting stuff, where we explore local
history, look at the anomalies, and survey the whole historical/cultural
landscape. I much prefer to do a Phase I.
As I have said before, an archaeologist is a generalist or he is nothing.
Ned Heite _(____)_ http:
Heite Consulting /Baby '69| //home.
Camden _===__/88" Land || dmv.com
Delaware | ___ Rover___ || /~eheite
o||| . \_____/ . \_|
_____________ \_/_______\_/___________
|
|
|