2nd February 2012, 05:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 2nd February 2012, 07:28 PM by quintaine.)
Steven Wrote:
Hi
There are some problems by not addressing the beliefs and view of people with alternative ideas about archaeology. We have seen already how a minority with certain pagan beliefs refuse to accept the argument that the retention (and preservation) of (prehistoric) human remains can be justified because scientific techniques improve. If this view was left unchallenged it would seriously erode the potential for understanding the past as there would be no re-assessment of remains as new techniques are developed.
I fundamentally do not accept the premise that all views have equal merit and that anybody can say what they like and have it respected by others. I was once asked (in an accusational way) by someone who believed their dowsing results should be prioritised over the geophysical survey results to influence a targeted evaluation "who are you to decide what is important and what should be investigated?" My response "A trained, qualified specialist who has been employed to advise members who are democratically elected by their local community to represent them"
So, instead of investigating the "mass baby burial from the civil war massacre" discovered by the dowser we trenched some of the industrial features of the DMV shown by the aerial photography, geophysical survey and documentary records.
Do you think in this case both interpretations were of equal merit, and both had the same legitimacy? Do you think an unrepresentative, unaccountable individual should have made the decisions in this case that or the accountable specialist might have a better understanding and therefore make better value judgement?
So you are willing to pick and choose articles from various accepted archaeological codes of conduct:
IfA
[FONT="]1.11 A member shall take account of the legitimate concerns of groups whose material past may be the subject of archaeological investigation.
WAC
[/FONT][FONT="]6. To acknowledge and recognise indigenous methodologies for interpreting, curating, managing and protecting indigenous cultural heritage.
I see, so it is selective interpretation of words as well as archaeological data. Now I get it, if you don't like the code of ethics, ignore them or reinterpret them to fit. It's so simple.
Now how does that make you different from "pseudo archaeologists"?
BTW: Yes I think dowsing should be recognised as a legitimate technique unless you disagree with WAC Code of ethics pt.6. Just because it has a power pack attached, it doesn't make it more legitimate. The point is just as fervently as you believe in a geophysical survey others believe in their methods and you have to accept this if you really wish to cooperate and not patronisingly and grudgingly accept it as a quaint sideshow in support of the "real" techniques.
[/FONT]