19th March 2010, 03:25 PM
RedEarth Wrote:Can we retitle this 'Theoretical archaeology makes my head hurt'?
OK, taking it bit by bit:
- your first paragraph contradicts itself, you are concerned about a strategy being implemented from above but at the same time admit that the alternative is a potentially disasterous interpretative free for all, thereby suggesting that one persons interpretation/method is more correct than anothers. Perhaps yours?
competing ideas usually one will be better than an other ... yes it is not a contradiction to show pros and cons
Quote:- next, commercial archaeology is certainly not ideal but it is better than the stuff being bulldozed out of existance, and so lose the all important evidence. There are still 'facts' to be had though, and I can't imagine what fantasy world would allow for a perfect retention of information in all cases - WE ARE DIGGING THE STUFF OUT OF THE GROUND FOR GOD'S SAKE! I would imagine there are all sorts of ommissions, nothing is perfect.
breath in breath out.... the notion is commercial archaeology needs improvement. It has deteriorated and lost its way... not we should do nothing instead
Quote:- I bet your supervisors love you!
I am the supervisor
Quote:- you seem to be confusing 'facts', 'data', and 'interpretation'. They are not the same thing.
- I have no idea what the sub context of data bit is all about.
- I have lost the will to live....
OK here is an example we will take it one step at a time. lets examine confirmation bias as a precursor
For those that have dug in the City of London (molas wessex oxford PCA etc) the site method statement will no doubt include the following research objective
What evidence is there, if any, for the decline in activity on the site in the mid-2nd century?
that's a loaded question
this is akin to giving a load of biologists a bunch of data and ask
What evidence is there, if any, for the intelligent design in this data set?
Someone could find evidence for intelligent design in the data set because some things could be interpreted as such but clearly if they look at the data as a whole they will conclude those bits of evidence can b explained in a different way that forms a more consistent explanation.. evolution
but they are not being asked that they have been asked to cherry pick out those bits of data that could fit ID theories at the expense of other theories
The same thing is being asked of all the Londinium dig supervisors and if they lack insight and/or experience they tend to try and fit the data to the model of 2nd cent decline ...now at this point it is irrelevant whether 2nd cent decline model is correct or not what is important for our discussion is we both agree that you understand the point I am making concerning confirmation bias.
this 2nd cent decline model is passed from top down with unstated assumptions built into the way sites are approached
Do you understand this first point?