.
Dealer Dave the Californian coin shop proprietor, commenting on an article by Keith Kloor which he found in Science Magazine, reckons the fuss about two TV programmes about Treasure hunting in the US is misplaced. Instead of being a "glamorization of looting", he thinks these programmes are
On the back of his comments - which basically boil down to "they are on private property so should not be criticised for what they do there", Welsh purports to supply his readers with a translation of what he calls "Archaeologese" which he claims "deceptively masquerades as English" and is the result of a "dogmatic perspective" of archaeologists concerned about the preservation of the archaeological record. He says that the "pervasive reliance upon "doublespeak" that is undisguised propaganda" among archaeologists appals him.
So - without reference to what actually is being discussed in the article - which include the commercial aspects which Dealer Dave sidesteps of course - he offers collector-clients and other dealers his own interpretation into Simple English of the words used in Kloor's article in Science Magazine. The words he redefines include "looting", "archaeological site", "destruction of archaeological sites" and "context". Well, I'd say any of his and Science Magazine's readers would do better to look at one of many archaeology textbooks to find better, fuller (less artefactocentric) and more authoritative definitions of such terms than Dealer Dave's.
But then anyone who regards media offerings such as "Diggers" as an "educational" programme obviously lives in a world all of his own.
Dealer Dave the Californian coin shop proprietor, commenting on an article by Keith Kloor which he found in Science Magazine, reckons the fuss about two TV programmes about Treasure hunting in the US is misplaced. Instead of being a "glamorization of looting", he thinks these programmes are"educational television program depicting recovery of artifacts that would otherwise almost certainly perish"(it is not explained by what mechanism archaeological evidence preserved for centuries in the ground would suddenly self-destruct in some Apocalyptic Artefactual Rapture). Welsh reckons that artefacts in the ground are necessarily "rotting" there (that does not seem to have been the case with his newest batch of coins offered with no supporting documentation on his shop's website, its not the state of preservation of the coins here that looks "rotten" to me).
On the back of his comments - which basically boil down to "they are on private property so should not be criticised for what they do there", Welsh purports to supply his readers with a translation of what he calls "Archaeologese" which he claims "deceptively masquerades as English" and is the result of a "dogmatic perspective" of archaeologists concerned about the preservation of the archaeological record. He says that the "pervasive reliance upon "doublespeak" that is undisguised propaganda" among archaeologists appals him.
So - without reference to what actually is being discussed in the article - which include the commercial aspects which Dealer Dave sidesteps of course - he offers collector-clients and other dealers his own interpretation into Simple English of the words used in Kloor's article in Science Magazine. The words he redefines include "looting", "archaeological site", "destruction of archaeological sites" and "context". Well, I'd say any of his and Science Magazine's readers would do better to look at one of many archaeology textbooks to find better, fuller (less artefactocentric) and more authoritative definitions of such terms than Dealer Dave's.
But then anyone who regards media offerings such as "Diggers" as an "educational" programme obviously lives in a world all of his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment