HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 5 Jun 1998 09:12:16 -0400
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization:
Virginia Commonwealth University
From:
Dan Mouer <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
Austin, Stephen P SWF wrote:
 
> I am in support of Mark's comment.  We see far too many suggestions of
> additional research, including mitigation efforts, simply because cool
> stuff would be found or maybe the privy might have some intact bottles
> in it.  A solid research design is important, and for most archeological
> efforts (those tied to the 106 process), the research design is the
> critical piece of the reason to excavate.  While Emily does not think
> the listserv requires anyone to produce a comprehensive research design
> (and she is correct), we still do.  Failing to prepare something that
> does not justify the expenditure of public dollars is simply
> irresponsible.
>
> Stephen P. Austin (CESWF-EV-EC)
>
 
Mark and Stephen. I must disagree. If we had even a reasonably good idea of
what we might expect to find by digging a site, then I would question
whether we should be digging it at all. I have no qualms with folks using a
"research design," and I support anyone's attempts to make good and proper
use of taxpayer's money. However, there are lots of excellent reasons for
doing archaeology, and the fact-and-knowledge-gathering scientism of the 70s
is not, by far, the only one.
 
For instance, one might excavate an underground railroad site because doing
so raises public awareness of the concrete, material facts of resistence to
slavery. It honors and memorializes certain human efforts and institutions.
Sorry if this shocks anyone, but huge amounts of historical archaeology are
done for no reason other than the desire by some group of folks to honor or
memorialize or justify their version of history.
 
The fact that so many federal and state bureacuacies are caught up in the
belief system that says research designs are crucial reflects, IMHO, the
historical origins of archaeo-bureacracies in the 1970s and early 80s. The
then-current belief systems of numerous recent grad students have become
fossilized as national and state policy. No reason everyone has to follow
that star, however.
 
 
--
Dan Mouer
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
Virginia Commonwealth University
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dmouer/homepage.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2