14th November 2010, 01:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 14th November 2010, 01:39 PM by GnomeKing.)
i sense a 'subject/object' or 'can science be truly objective' theme developing.....the issue is not so much about the Practices of archaeologists excavating sites, but rather the point at which commercial projects can be said to have sufficiently met their necessary conditions.
Practically it seems possible to record without much interpretation - but philosophically this indeed an impossibility...for example, how do choose what to record, using what criteria, and to what detail?
I think requiring that a site be Understood is categorically higher than a requirement to Record....our commonly accepted paradigms necessitate that a site must be Well-Recorded before it can be Understood..
This may open new problems (e.g. incentive to create interpretation on shaky evidence), but ONLY if quality of data,evidence and method is insufficiently monitored
On the other hand, rigid belief that our records are sufficiently objective in-themselves to stand for the material itself can stunt new ideas, and create unrefelexive work patterns why paradigms are not questioned (e.g. what/how much to record). This is of significance because each site is unrepeatable, and can be dug only once.
If the first situation truly pertained, the we might expect to see competition over interpretive rigour, and ability to draw/disseminate meaning from the evidence.
If the second, then we might expect to see competition over ability to create detailed technical data, and over methodological sophistication.
Unfortunately, neither is truly the case, and competition is instead about price.
A preference for sites to be understood not just recorded is necessary when its hard to check standards of data collection and field methods nationally....requirements for understanding provide a check on commercial operators because it forces some level of 'deep' data analysis for conclusions to stand inspection.....this is better tahn no checks!
'Understanding' a site might indeed be the conclusion that the site is Not Understood, and is (for example) of such significance/potential that every effort must be made to excavate and record for posterity as much as possible before it is immanently destroyed.....
Practically it seems possible to record without much interpretation - but philosophically this indeed an impossibility...for example, how do choose what to record, using what criteria, and to what detail?
I think requiring that a site be Understood is categorically higher than a requirement to Record....our commonly accepted paradigms necessitate that a site must be Well-Recorded before it can be Understood..
This may open new problems (e.g. incentive to create interpretation on shaky evidence), but ONLY if quality of data,evidence and method is insufficiently monitored
On the other hand, rigid belief that our records are sufficiently objective in-themselves to stand for the material itself can stunt new ideas, and create unrefelexive work patterns why paradigms are not questioned (e.g. what/how much to record). This is of significance because each site is unrepeatable, and can be dug only once.
If the first situation truly pertained, the we might expect to see competition over interpretive rigour, and ability to draw/disseminate meaning from the evidence.
If the second, then we might expect to see competition over ability to create detailed technical data, and over methodological sophistication.
Unfortunately, neither is truly the case, and competition is instead about price.
A preference for sites to be understood not just recorded is necessary when its hard to check standards of data collection and field methods nationally....requirements for understanding provide a check on commercial operators because it forces some level of 'deep' data analysis for conclusions to stand inspection.....this is better tahn no checks!
'Understanding' a site might indeed be the conclusion that the site is Not Understood, and is (for example) of such significance/potential that every effort must be made to excavate and record for posterity as much as possible before it is immanently destroyed.....