More than guidance, more along the lines of...."Answers with
bibliography...quickly please" - have you taught the A level then Chris?
I have no wish to discourage anyone from seeking advice or assistance from
Britarch or any other source. I think anyone interested in archaeology
should be encouraged to follow that interest. They also however needed to be
encouraged to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Spoonfeeding does no favours to the
student as it leads only to the acquisition of information not the ability
to critically assess that information.
confused. AKA Nicky Snashall - lots of integrity and a sense of humour,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cumberpatch" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Archealogy A'Level
> 'Confused' writes: Well, maybe, but if he's not able or willing to put
> effort in then why do it??? 10 out of 10 for gumption, (possibly) 0 out of
> 10 for application.......what will he learn being given all the
> answers?...the personal study in the A level archaeology is supposed to
> teach planning and research skills, and to encourage the students to think
> for themselves in the manner of archaeologists....
> > an ex-A level archaeology tutor
> Was he asking for 'all the answers'? My impression was that he was
> seeking some guidance as to how to approach a couple of potential essay
> topics. It seems emminently sensible to seek such advice rather than
> possibly floundering amongst the substantial amount of material available.
> There seems little point 'thinking for oneself' if one is not directing
> thinking along the most fruitful lines of enquiry and employing the latest
> data as source material. In practical terms, seeking advice from others
> a surely amongst the first steps in any research project. Indeed, one
> even say that it is fundamental part of research. It is also one which is
> too rarely applied, certainly in commercial archaeology. I've seen a
> of desktop assessment and excavation reports from supposedly experienced
> archaeologists working for major units and consultancies which contain
> elementary factual errors, most of which could have been avoided if the
> authors had consulted someone with appropriate local knowledge and
> experience of the types of sites involved. I've also seen reports riddled
> with spelling and grammatical errors.
> It would be a disgrace if people with an interest in archaeology were
> be discouraged from consulting a list such as Britarch because of the
> attitudes of some list members who lack the basic integrity to sign their
> messages with their real names.
> Chris Cumberpatch