8th April 2014, 04:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 10th April 2014, 12:09 PM by Marc Berger.)
I am with you on that Archexile and it can only come from a watching brief ...which should only have been done after an equally dull evaluation....The concept of undertaking an excavation after an evaluation and not finding anything would be a bit questionable.
The "re"search value of the negative is purely that of the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and we can get that even when we decide that something is there. I must say that I struggle with the concept of "re"search when applied to excavation archaeology. Why isn't it just called search? On a site are we confirmining/reaffirming the results of others, possibly we might be confirming some bodies prediction -confirming some three age system or other but I don't think that its research. Its the creation of archaeology from destructive observation(a search made by index) made all the more unique by location. Where is the re about it. Its hardly repeatable.
Bending my wan back to "ifa to be abolished" I was wondering what the ifa considered a suitably qualified person to undertake excavation according to article 3 of the Valetta convention. Looking again at their list of things that you might like to submit to show how gifted you are to become a member, I presume that the Valetta qualification to excavate is of a lesser order than writing excavation reports or HER audits HLF bids or spec writing. Came across this that informs us that professionalism is not about earning a living form knowledge. http://www.pia-journal.co.uk/article/view/pia.392/507 Note that although it was presented to a University the author had no difficulty in ignoring any contribution from such establishments to his definitions on expert and professional.
What digging is about is professionalism in excavation.
The "re"search value of the negative is purely that of the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and we can get that even when we decide that something is there. I must say that I struggle with the concept of "re"search when applied to excavation archaeology. Why isn't it just called search? On a site are we confirmining/reaffirming the results of others, possibly we might be confirming some bodies prediction -confirming some three age system or other but I don't think that its research. Its the creation of archaeology from destructive observation(a search made by index) made all the more unique by location. Where is the re about it. Its hardly repeatable.
Bending my wan back to "ifa to be abolished" I was wondering what the ifa considered a suitably qualified person to undertake excavation according to article 3 of the Valetta convention. Looking again at their list of things that you might like to submit to show how gifted you are to become a member, I presume that the Valetta qualification to excavate is of a lesser order than writing excavation reports or HER audits HLF bids or spec writing. Came across this that informs us that professionalism is not about earning a living form knowledge. http://www.pia-journal.co.uk/article/view/pia.392/507 Note that although it was presented to a University the author had no difficulty in ignoring any contribution from such establishments to his definitions on expert and professional.
What digging is about is professionalism in excavation.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist