[meteorite-list] Dig Turns Up Little At Mysterious Newport Tower *except for a meteorite)

From: Thaddeus Besedin <endophasy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1400.51894.qm_at_web62508.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Charlie/list/others,
  I reprimanded the "others" prematurely.
  Students are in a catch-22 according to a strong application of my position: one cannot be expected to competently participate in excavations and process archaeological materials until one has necessary experience only available in excavation. Perhaps simulations of excavations should always precede actual excavation by students - dress rehearsals.
  -Thaddeus

Charlie Devine <moonrock25 at webtv.net> wrote:
  Friends,

I am writing to apologize for, and correct, a statement I made to the
met-list regarding the specific circumstances behind the recovery of a
possible meteorite during the course of a recent archaeological
investigation of the Newport Tower.

On 11/28/06 (
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2006-November/028611.html
) I wrote:
>As for the mystery stone, it was actually
>found by accident when one of the
>students working there ran a magnet
>through dirt taken from a 2000-3000BP
>level. They were not screening or
>paying attention to that level, as it long
>predates the tower, but the student
>didn't realize it and used a magnet in a
>search for metal artifacts, and up popped
>the stone.

This account was actually conveyed to me by one of the principals
involved in the dig. Although I thought it odd at the time that no
attention would be paid to the prehistoric level, regrettably, I failed
to double check the accuracy of this account with the site director of
the archaeological team. Recently, the site director contacted me, and
kindly informed me that, one, the account I posted is fundamentally in
error, and two, the account has become the source of an internet rumor
that calls into question the methodology employed by the archaeological
team. Indeed, some may recall that during the short life of this thread
a few listmembers replied with the specific purpose of criticizing the
methodology I described. See for example:
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2006-November/028635.html

The site director of the team that recovered the stone has kindly set
the record straight for me, and it's my responsibility to correct my
error and set the record straight here. Here are the facts as I now
understand them, and as conveyed to me by the site director:

1) Every bit of dirt was screened from the excavations, and the stone
was found in the screen.
2) The archaeological team was particularly interested in the level of
dirt from which the stone came because that level could have potentially
contained prehistoric material.
3) The site director requested that all the workers use a magnet on all
screen materials before dumping the screen.
4) In the site director's own words "it was because of our
methodological and precise methods that we recovered the "meteorite"
from the screen, not because we 'were not screening or paying attention
to that level' ".
5) No student workers were involved in the dig.
With the exception of 2 volunteers, everyone on the team was a paid
professional archaeologist.

In closing, I hope this helps to set the record straight. I apologize
to any member of the archaeological community for whom my erroneous
statement caused any misunderstanding. I apologize as well to those for
whom accuracy in reporting is a standard, not an afterthought.

Sincerely,
Charlie Devine

______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


 
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20061210/2d6ab3ae/attachment.html>
Received on Sun 10 Dec 2006 05:57:20 PM PST