'though earthfast archaeology is valued above the portable by several
orders of magnitude'
That is, sadly, not news. Most field archaeologists have always failed to
recognise the improtance of portable finds, while often relying on them for
their own frequently dubious theories about their sites.
> From: Anne Brundle[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: British archaeology discussion list
> Sent: 06 April 2001 13:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pot washing / finds processing
> It may be enough to teach the technicalities of finds processing on site,
> but the need for finds to be studied, archived and studied again in the
> light of new discoveries should be taught at the same time as students
> are hearing about the rest of the archaeological process. Yet lecturers,
> when asked, have told me "It's not our job" and "That's practical
> knowledge they get later."
> So, certainly in Scotland, we have some archaeologists who will
> travel many miles to visit a site, but very few miles to see artefacts.
> as though earthfast archaeology is valued above the portable by several
> orders of magnitude. And, disturbingly, specialist reports are
> increasingly being written by people who have not taken any opportunity
> to study relevant reference collections. And those who are worried about
> it begin to feel a little outnumbered and sad :(
> Anne Brundle * Orkney Islands Council
> [log in to unmask]