IN SITU RESEARCH.

[fossiltrader]

I am compeled once again to point out well meaning amateurs do not help that much.
We here are not allowed apart from rare instances to do more than examine sites on site in other words in situ.
We are taught that to dig a site is better called to destroy a site therefore the less removal done the better.
Once an object leaves its first context 90% of the information relevant to that object is lost.
Therefore well meaning amateurs that Dig sites and collect artefacts are merely destroying information.
Once again you are seeing the difference between a trained archaeologist and a well meaning amateur collector.
The ultimate target we aim for is one day to never have to dig at all merely have the ability to study a site with zero disturbance artefacts stored on book shelfs or tucked in the garage corners are mostly dead.

[kbs2244]

If I remember correctly, a number of important discoveries have been made on objects removed from their original locations.

The Gilgamesh story and the Rosetta Stone come to mind.

[Minimalist]

I think FT's point is that "uninscribed" items can tell archaeologists a great deal just by the context they are found in. Advances allow the dating of associated pollen grains, for example and this would be lost once the object is dug up.

So, yes....a text can always be deciphered by someone who knows how to read it but an otherwise nondescript pile of pottery shards cannot.

I doubt that anyone here would dispute that treasure hunters who are looking for pieces to sell do more harm than good.

Do I read you correctly, FT?

[Forum Monk]

I think I understand FT and agree that in situ research is best left to the pros. On the otherhand, I also believe that a lot interesting things can and have been discovered by amateurs wrt artefacts already exposed to examination by nonprofessionals.

By the way FT, I think the technology which allows in situ examination is really cool (me being a technophile and all). Development of those technologies I think is VERY interesting work.

[kbs2244]

My argument is just because something was found by an “amateur”, and perhaps removed from it’s context, doesn’t mean it should be ignored like it doesn’t exist.
Amateurs can be some of the best conservators. The Utah Fremont Culture canyon comes to mind.
And, I believe, both the Rosetta Stone and the Gigamesh tablets were found and removed and stored in a “Basement” by well funded and respectfully funded, “Professional” archaeologists working with state of the art technology.
Once the damage is done, do the best that you can with the stuff.
Don’t turn you back on it because it wasn’t found by “one of us.”
That is the ultimate in snobbery.

[fossiltrader]

Yes min thats my point i wasnt born an archaeologist for 20 years i was one of those well meaning amateurs it scared me to death when i started studying and discovered how much i didnt know.

[Frank Harrist]

I must point out that there is a difference between "well meaning amateurs" and looters. I am of the former persuasion. I am sanctioned by the Texas Historical Commision and do have some training and I resent being pigeon-holed alongside looters. At one time there were no proffesional archaeologists, but plenty of amateurs. We have probably learned more from them than from all the pros who have come after them. And, even amateurs know about punctuation.

[kbs2244]

Amen Brother!
(On all points.)

[fossiltrader]

Thank you Frank about puctuation ........,,,,,,,,, help yourself it better to miss the odd comma and still be able to read lol i reread my post sorry but looters isnt in there at all??????
By the way over the years the most pedantic PHDs i have ever worked with are the ones that usually write rather well pity their research isnt up to scratch.
Texas commision wow im sorry i am not impressed maybe you should take a look at the big wide world to place on par an Americam trained archaeologist with an Australian you are rather nieve.

[Frank Harrist]

If that was an insult to American archaeologists it was hard to tell with all the run on sentences. One thing archaeologists and all scientists need to be able to do is communicate. Something you have yet to master. As for you're not being impressed....well damn! I'll lose sleep over that tonight. Don't ever talk down to me. I have never seen or heard anything which led me to believe that australian archaeologists were any better than any others. You are not helping their case. Arrogant maybe but actually better....no.


*I had a typo. I fixed it.

[john]

Thank you Frank about puctuation ........,,,,,,,,, help yourself it better to miss the odd comma and still be able to read lol i reread my post sorry but looters isnt in there at all??????
By the way over the years the most pedantic PHDs i have ever worked with are the ones that usually write rather well pity their research isnt up to scratch.
Texas commision wow im sorry i am not impressed maybe you should take a look at the big wide world to place on par an Americam trained archaeologist with an Australian you are rather nieve.

Fossiltrader -

Your post speaks for itself.

The last time I checked, the main - and only - goal of this forum was a free discussion and exploration of all things archaeological.

I don't recall any announcement, or definition driven by the creators and moderators of this forum which separates those who possess degrees in archaeology from those who don't.

Or, for that matter, any internal forum pecking order predetermined by those same creators and moderators.

By the way, re: "Texas commision wow im sorry i am not impressed maybe you should take a look at the big wide world to place on par an Americam trained archaeologist with an Australian you are rather nieve."

There is a fine line between the presentation of strongly held opinion and personal attack. In my opinion, you crossed that line in your statement which I quoted above.

If you feel you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to present it.


Hoka Hey,

John

[Forum Monk]

A discussion forum for archaeology...
Not an english homework assignment. I work with a group of engineers who are among the worst spellers and writers I have ever met but they are excellent in their field of expertise. I personally am relunctant to draw conclusions from one's typing or writing skills. In fact, since FT has begun posting and others have criticized his punctuation, etc. I have subconsciously been proof-reading my punctation which is a bit of a pain. I have forgotten so much, its like english is a second language for me. (ex. one shouldn't end their sentances with a preposition, but sometimes I want to.)

[kbs2244]

Anybody with the computer skill to use the internet has the computer skills to write their posts in a word processor, run them through the proper checks, cut and past it to the thread, and present to the world a reasonably coherent and readable post.

FT, you may be a good archaeologist, but you are not doing the yourself or the profession any favors with your posts. They are just too hard on your reader to get the point you are trying to make.

You have a good point Monk. I have worked with those type of guys also. But they had a saint of an department secretary that could decipher them and type out what they meant to say. Her good doesn’t exist today. Microsoft Word made it obsolete.

[Minimalist]

There are always people, on any message board, who think that they have a better idea for running it.

Fortunately, only Michelle's vote counts.

[kbs2244]

I do not want to misunderstood here.

Everything I am saying is meant to be taken as constructive criticism.
I am not perfect. Far from it. I don’t expect others to be either.

But I have learned through painful experience that if you want respect for your views, when you communicate them, as verbal, written, or internet, you have to follow the rules of conventional society.

Otherwise people blow you off. And in my case that meant lost income.

More than once I have seen a bad idea, well presented, win out over a good idea, poorly presented. I have been guilty of both.

I, personally, went from a so so technical type, to a pretty successful sales/marketing type.

I owe most of it to going back to my HS grammar and Strunk’s rules of Composition text books. (And the advice of one of my early editors/proofreaders who told me “Assume a sixth grade education.”)

Short sentences. No more than 7 words. Ten max. Short words. Short paragraphs. Four or five sentences max.

I work on 95% my posts offline, no matter the subject or board. The subjects range from those here to machine design, building construction, and bullet trajectories.

Why the effort? Because the Internet is forever. I not only want the respect of my present audience for my views, that of my great, great grandchildren when they look up my posts.

Is it difficult. Yes. Even after 30 plus years.

Look at the above post. It breaks some of the rules stated in it.
Not quite Pauline sentence structure, but pushing it.
(But I am assuming a greater than US sixth grade education on this board.)

You get my drift?