Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:58:31 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Denis Gojak wrote:
> It may be different in the US but in Australia there has been considerable difficulty in getting university students interested in reanalysing older collections, with the notable exception of Tim Murray's La Trobe University group. Even so, this sort of activity is really only worthwhile when the collection is of a certain standard (documentation, storage etc). I'd be interested to know just how useful complete or comprehensive reanalysis of older excavated collections is and in what way. Tha
>
> Denis
As one of those La Trobe students who has re-analysed older collections
I found it very frustrating in the way some of the collections had been
already culled and sorted in a way that did not allow proper reference
to what had been excavated origionally. However, I guess the value in
this is that when I get round to excavating a site and recording and
storing the artefacts, I hope I shall bear in find that the initial
analysis is not always going to be the final one and I leave the
collection in a manner that other researchers may re-analyse it in other
ways at some time in the future.
John Hyett
|
|
|