+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments (/showthread.php?tid=3041)
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - GnomeKing - 1st May 2010
i go about my life - its clear to me that sometimes my activities are producing archaeology, but there are many others where i am not engaged in producing archaeology - it seems useless to conflate the activity of an archaeologist doing archaeology with the daily production of life/cultural traces that might in future become the activity of a future archaeologist - that is to say, it must be an act of specific Will, to bring something that can meaningfully called archaeology, into existence.
However, that act need not be fully predicated on excavtion, or any other physicality..."Pity! This vessle, meets no one to fill it." ...
Archaeology is not created by peoples activity in the past - material remains were not made for us to find. They have passed through entrpy and time - that blade was not forged rusty...those bones once had flesh upon them...
The material remains may indeed have existence beyond our knowledge of them (direct or inferred), but they become archaeology through our perception of them.
What of Falling Trees? They might cause vibrations in the air as they fall, but they reuire an act of Perception to cause sound. We do not ask whether the other trees heard thier ailling companion, nor whether this unfortunate tree was itself aware of all the commotion it has since caused. ..we have faith/assumption that archaeology exists that we have not uncovered, just like we assume a falling tree always makes noise, but like an unethical cat-in-a-box conundrum, our thinking about and perception of these material things changes their nature, and renders them into archaeological concepts.
This is more than just semantics - there are practical implications for how one orientates oneself to the task at hand- it is a reminder that archaeology is created through thought, and that different thinking can create different archaeology.
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - Unitof1 - 2nd May 2010
Quote:[SIZE=3]but they become archaeology through our perception of them
[/SIZE]
agreed -take note mr invisible- field archaeologists create archaeology
and the rules which govern field work are mainly concentrated in rules under the part of the code mysteriously entitled Principle 1
A member shall adhere to high (sic) standards of ethical and
responsible behaviour in the conduct of archaeological affairs.
And it is these rules that are most often attacked, changed, misunderstood by the ifa (somebody else pays their membership and pension) establishment
why
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - troll - 2nd May 2010
Just to chuck in a couple of spanners.....a "from the topsoil down" approach could be seen as a way of at least considering all strata and as such is a positive thing?
On the metal-detectorist front......what on earth compells anyone to believe that metal detectorists limit their intrusions to the topsoil?
A fairly scary development is this one.... the "Golden King Deep Processor Radar" is now on sale through Evergreen Detectors (www.uk-metal-detectors.co.uk) and is hailed as the "worlds first detector with radar technology". This equipment is apparently able to provide real-time graphics of objects to a depth of ten metres...... nighthawks with earthmoving equipment could be the next step in the detecting world?
Whilst codes of conduct are welcome, isn`t it about time that hard and fast statute laws were pursued?
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - BAJR - 2nd May 2010
Ar.... I do believe that as soon as you move below the plough soil you are into verbotten land! and indeed I am well known in detecting land... and I have stuck to the guns of recording, after all, the argument for saving the past falls down when the find just ends up under a bed... I do beleive that detectorists have an amazing amount to offer... I also believe there is a lot of nods as good as a wink... Perhaps we should buy the Golden King Deep Processor Radar... sounds like a great onsite tool
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - monty - 3rd May 2010
And who is it that sets and regulates these 'high standards'.???
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - Jack - 5th May 2010
troll Wrote:A fairly scary development is this one.... the "Golden King Deep Processor Radar" is now on sale through Evergreen Detectors (www.uk-metal-detectors.co.uk) and is hailed as the "worlds first detector with radar technology". This equipment is apparently able to provide real-time graphics of objects to a depth of ten metres...... nighthawks with earthmoving equipment could be the next step in the detecting world?
Er..this is a bizzarre claim, how can radar detect finds?
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - Jack - 5th May 2010
GnomeKing Wrote:...........This is more than just semantics - there are practical implications for how one orientates oneself to the task at hand- it is a reminder that archaeology is created through thought, and that different thinking can create different archaeology.
This all hinges on a definition of archaeology. If it is the remains of passed activity e.g. plough furrow remnants, truncated post-hole etc, then this has been created by peoples activity in the past. If however your meaning the meaning behind the remains, i.e. what the remains meant to the people or what they were thinking, then your going to be a very frustrated archaeologist, unless you build a time machine.
This is why we should use evidence to back up theories, this evidence then iterrogated through publication. When new evidence arises, the evidence should be re-interrogated. Simples.
I do take your point, however, on peoples 'interpretations'. ......and this piece of pottery could have come from a villa that looked like this!
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - GnomeKing - 6th May 2010
Not just 'interpretations', meanings or imaginings, but also eminently Practical and Technical issues...e.g. Dinosaurs post that I referred to (lots of other examples in archives of this forum)..
Evidence is good, but Science not so Simples...(eg Richard Holmes, 2009, "Age of Wonder")
If it (Archaeology) is "the remains of past activity" (post holes ect) it can not simultaenously by created by those same people - it must be percieved at some distance to qualify as being in the past...
Perhaps the Remains-in-themselves do not qualify as Archaeology per se? - they become such when perceived another person (sometime in the future)...generations walk past ancient monuments without perceiving them as Archaeology - at least not in the sense that we now regard the discipline...(and yet the Remains remain...)
empty green fields are filled with unexpected discoveries through the activities of archaeologists now - can those remains be said to be Archaeology independent of the actions/thoughts/perceptions of Archaeologists?
When the field is dug up there is no formal scientific Evidence until the archaeologist has created it - there is little or no Material, until the archaeological digger decides where to start digging and how best to investigate the Remains . Perceptions and paradigms are clearly in dialouge with data, in both directions...
Dictionary definitions of 'archaeology' all indicate that it is the study of various remains of the past. ...(well human/cultural related remains anyway - this is less problematic in palaeontology, as clearly it is not useful, or practical, to consider that fossils are made by dinosaurs...)
How are antiques or ritual objects different to archaeology objects?
Is this a just a nice little trinket I found in the plough-soil, to do with as I please, or is it an archaeological object?
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - Jack - 6th May 2010
GnomeKing Wrote:Not just 'interpretations', meanings or imaginings, but also eminently Practical and Technical issues...e.g. Dinosaurs post that I referred to (lots of other examples in archives of this forum)..
Evidence is good, but Science not so Simples...(eg Richard Holmes, 2009, "Age of Wonder")
But science is simple...its just a way of thinking.....the scientific method is defined as.....
'Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating
phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting
and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and
subject to rules of reasoning[1].
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that
distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers
propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that
test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable
predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more
specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses,
as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.'
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments - Unitof1 - 6th May 2010
Field archaeology is not a reproducible phenomena. Field archaeology has a geophysical location that cannot be repeated. That geophysical location is under ownership. The recording of the observation has a point in time which also makes the observation unique. The observation of the phenomena by the individual archaeologist is unique and has copyright. What I believe is that a professional field archaeologist should consider that the act or event of uncovering and recording to that given location is owned by them.
Back in the real world we have diggers who do not hold copyright or ownership. They are mostly ignorant and never having had copyright don’t know what they are missing Instead we have a system driven by people calling themselves archaeologists (members). They are really curators. An example are academics who want the results of your excavations for their theories which is nice if they pay you but unfortunately there is a another set of people called curators who want your information for other reasons. One of the easiest excuses is Nationalism or to use the Valletta treaty fig leaf Common Identity. Possibly nothing wrong with that for Troll but to get it really cheap these curators like your archaeology to be donated. For them all archaeology is public. I could attempt to list all the things that they have done in the name of archaeology (without the field prefix) but it mostly adds up to civil service pension.
http://www.investmentandbusinessnews.co.uk/uk-economy/why-greek-contagion-wont-spread-as-far-as-elgin-marbles/