3rd March 2012, 02:31 PM
Prentice u nit
anyone who finds value from the physical examination of the past and I like to get that definition as close to those who have a trowel in their hand.
or anybody I say is an archaeologist.
Sorry I haven’t read the book. What I would like to see is a history of who made a killing and how particularly in relation to the definition of anarchaeologist. but mostly to use as examples for future cons on little old ladies. Things like public sector pensions should be brought into it as they make it particularly difficult to put a value on the archaeology at any one time. Also it can be difficult to see the archaeology for the trees, heres an example from wales. (Dino these examples have never left us) Seems to start with a vision and then requires ?177,136 (this figure does not take in defras tax farming costs) or possibly public endematy insurance. Historic name changes are involved –more visions-and anthropology gets to examine the history of its own belly button fluff and plot its assendancy over archaeology. Not sure if any archaeology is killed in the course of the fulfilment of the vision, possibly ?6 worth or what archaeology bares on the history of ppg pre or post. Also is it concerned with the professionalism or standards of archaeology. Do people from this world come in and affect my grubby little existence. Cant see if there is any requirement for curator standards in it. Did the standard vision require a written scheme of works to be approved and the consultation of the HER. Presumably I should applaud the production of more people expecting to find value from the physical examination of the past but presumably any history of professional archaeology will probably be based from the academic take and I can see that my argument is incoherent which is what all good history is unless you believe in god or have any other fundamental bias.
http://www.trinitysaintdavid.ac.uk/en/archaeologyhistoryandanthropology/stratafloridaproject/
Quote:go on give us your definition of an
Quote:archaeologist - its Saturday
anyone who finds value from the physical examination of the past and I like to get that definition as close to those who have a trowel in their hand.
or anybody I say is an archaeologist.
Quote:Unless we look back that far we are likely to conclude that the
Quote:current situation is the only possible one, while it is open to major
reconfiguration given a direction of travel and enough pressure. In my book I
trace the oriigin of many of the most problematic parts of current commercial
practice
Sorry I haven’t read the book. What I would like to see is a history of who made a killing and how particularly in relation to the definition of anarchaeologist. but mostly to use as examples for future cons on little old ladies. Things like public sector pensions should be brought into it as they make it particularly difficult to put a value on the archaeology at any one time. Also it can be difficult to see the archaeology for the trees, heres an example from wales. (Dino these examples have never left us) Seems to start with a vision and then requires ?177,136 (this figure does not take in defras tax farming costs) or possibly public endematy insurance. Historic name changes are involved –more visions-and anthropology gets to examine the history of its own belly button fluff and plot its assendancy over archaeology. Not sure if any archaeology is killed in the course of the fulfilment of the vision, possibly ?6 worth or what archaeology bares on the history of ppg pre or post. Also is it concerned with the professionalism or standards of archaeology. Do people from this world come in and affect my grubby little existence. Cant see if there is any requirement for curator standards in it. Did the standard vision require a written scheme of works to be approved and the consultation of the HER. Presumably I should applaud the production of more people expecting to find value from the physical examination of the past but presumably any history of professional archaeology will probably be based from the academic take and I can see that my argument is incoherent which is what all good history is unless you believe in god or have any other fundamental bias.
http://www.trinitysaintdavid.ac.uk/en/archaeologyhistoryandanthropology/stratafloridaproject/
Reason: your past is my past