Moral Justifications for Archaeological Excavation Sites. Can archaeological excavation of sites not under immediate threat of development or erosion be justified morally? Explore the pros and cons of research (as opposed to rescue and salvage) excavation and non-destructive archaeological research methods using specific examples. Many people believe that archaeology and archaeologists are mainly concerned with excavation – with digging sites. This may be the common public image of archaeology, as often portrayed on television, although Rahtz (1991, 65-86) has made clear that archaeologists in fact do many things besides excavate. Drewett (1999, 76) goes further, commenting that ‘it must never be assumed that excavation is an essential part of any archaeological fieldwork’. Excavation itself is a costly and destructive research tool, destroying the object of its research forever (Renfrew and Bahn 1996, 100). Of the present day it has been noted that rather than desiring to dig every site they know about, the majority of archaeologists work within a conservation ethic that has grown up in the past few decades (Carmichael et al. 2003, 41). Given the shift to excavation taking place mostly in a rescue or salvage context where the archaeology would otherwise face destruction and the inherently destructive nature of excavation, it has become appropriate to ask whether research excavation can be morally justified. This essay will seek to answer that question in the affirmative and also explore the pros and cons of research excavation and non-destructive archaeological research methods. If the moral justification of research excavation is questionable in comparison to the excavation of threatened sites, it would seem that what makes rescue excavation morally acceptable is the fact that the site would be lost to human knowledge if it was not investigated. It seems clear from this, and seems widely accepted that excavation itself is a useful investigative technique. Renfrew and Bahn (1996, 97) suggest that excavation ‘retains its central role in fieldwork because it yields the most reliable evidence archaeologists are interested in’. Carmichael et al. (2003, 32) note that ‘excavation is the means by which we access the past’ and that it is the most basic, defining aspect of archaeology. As mentioned above, excavation is a costly and destructive process that destroys the object of its study. Bearing this in mind, it seems that it is perhaps the context in which excavation is used that has a bearing on whether or not it is morally justifiable. If the archaeology is bound to be destroyed through erosion or development then its destruction through excavation is vindicated since much data that would otherwise be lost will be created (Drewett 1999, 76). If rescue excavation is justifiable on the grounds that it prevents total loss in terms of the potential data, does this mean that research excavation is not morally justifiable because it is not simply ‘making the best use of archaeological sites that must be consumed’ (Carmichael et al. 2003, 34)? Many would disagree. Critics of research excavation may point out that the archaeology itself is a finite resource that must be preserved wherever possible for the future. The destruction of archaeological evidence through unnecessary (ie non-emergency) excavation denies the opportunity of research or enjoyment to future generations to whom we may owe a custodial duty of care (Rahtz 1991, 139). Even during the most responsible excavations where detailed records are made, 100% recording of a site is not possible, making any non-essential excavation almost a wilful destruction of evidence. These criticisms are not wholly valid though, and certainly the latter holds true during any excavation, not only research excavations, and surely during a research project there is likely to be more time available for a full recording effort than during the statutory access period of a rescue project. It is also debateable whether archaeology is a finite resource, since ‘new’ archaeology is created all the time. It seems inescapable though, that individual sites are unique and can suffer destruction but although it is more difficult and perhaps undesirable to deny that we have some responsibility to preserve this archaeology for future generations, is it not also the case that the present generations are entitled to make responsible use of it, if not to destroy it? Research excavation, best directed at answering potentially important research questions, can be done on a partial or selective basis, without disturbing or destroying a whole site, thus leaving areas for later researchers to investigate (Carmichael et al. 2003, 41). Furthermore, this can and should be done in conjunction with non-invasive techniques such as aerial photography, ground, geophysical and chemical survey (Drewett 1999, 76). Continued research excavation also allows the practice and development of new techniques, without which such skills would be lost, preventing future excavation technique from being improved. An excellent example of the benefits of a combination of research excavation and non-destructive archaeological techniques is the work that has been done, despite objections, at the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Sutton Hoo, in eastern England (Rahtz 1991 136-47; Renfrew and Bahn 1996, 98-99). Excavation originally took place on the site in 1938-39 revealing many treasures and the impression in sand of a wooden ship used for a burial, though the body was not found. The focus of these campaigns and those of the 1960s were traditional in their approach, being concerned with the opening of burial mounds, their contents, dating and identifying historical connections such as the identity of the occupants. In the 1980s a new campaign with different aims was undertaken, directed by Martin Carver. Rather than beginning and ending with excavation, a regional survey was carried out over an area of some 14ha, helping to set the site in its local context. Electronic distance measuring was used to create a topographical contour map prior to other work. A grass expert examined the variety of grass species on-site and identified the positions of some 200 holes dug into the site. Other environmental studies examined beetles, pollen and snails. In addition, a phosphate survey, indicative of likely areas of human occupation, corresponded with results of the surface survey. Other non-destructive tools were used such as metal detectors, used to map modern rubbish. A proton magnetometer, fluxgate gradiometer and soil resistivity were all used on a small part of the site to the east, which was later excavated. Of those techniques, resistivity proved the most informative, revealing a modern ditch and a double palisade, as well as some other features (see comparative illustrations in Renfrew and Bahn 1996, 99). Excavation later revealed features that had not been remotely detected. Resistivity has since been used on the area of the mounds while soil-sounding radar, which penetrates deeper than resistivity, is being used on the mounds themselves. At Sutton Hoo, the techniques of geophysical survey are seen to operate as a complement to excavation, not merely a preliminary nor yet a replacement. By trialling such techniques in conjunction with excavation, their effectiveness can be gauged and new and more effective techniques developed. The results at Sutton Hoo suggest that research excavation and non-destructive methods of archaeological research remain morally justifiable. However, simply because such techniques can be applied efficiently does not mean that excavation should be the priority nor that all sites should be excavated, but such a scenario has never been a likely one due to the usual constraints such as funding. Besides, it has been noted above that there is already a trend towards conservation. Continued research excavation at famous sites such as Sutton Hoo, as Rahtz notes (1991, 140-41), is justified since it serves avowedly to develop archaeological practice itself; the physical remains, or shapes in the landscape can be and are restored to their former appearance with the bonus of being better understood, more educational and interesting; such exotic and special sites capture the imagination of the public and the media and raise the profile of archaeology as a whole. There are other sites that could prove equally good examples of morally justifiable long term research archaeology, such as Wharram Percy (for which see Rahtz 1991, 148-57). Progressing from a straightforward excavation in 1950, with the aim of showing that the earthworks represented medieval buildings, the site grew to represent much more in time, space and complexity. Techniques used expanded from excavation to include survey techniques and aerial photography to set the village into a local context. In conclusion, it can be seen that while excavation is destructive, there is a morally justifiable place for research archaeology and non-destructive archaeological techniques: excavation should not be reduced only to rescue circumstances. Research excavation projects, such as Sutton Hoo, have provided many positive aspects to the development of archaeology and knowledge of the past. While excavation should not be undertaken lightly, and non-destructive techniques should be employed in the first place, it is clear that as yet they cannot replace excavation in terms of the amount and types of data provided. Non-destructive techniques such as environmental sampling and resistivity survey have, provided significant complementary data to that which excavation provides and both should be employed. Bibliography Carmichael, D.L., Lafferty III, R.H. and Molyneaux, B.L. 2003. Excavation. Walnut Creek and Oxford: Altamira Press. Drewett, P.L. 1999. Field Archaeology: An Introduction. London: UCL Press. Rahtz, P. 1991. Invitation to Archaeology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P.1996. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. 2nd edition. London: ThamesMoral Justifications for Archaeological Excavation Sites
Application: Applying Bowenian and Structural Theories
Application: Applying Bowenian and Structural Theories.
Application: Applying Bowenian and Structural TheoriesTheory-based treatment planning, the type you will use throughout this course, is informed and guided by your theoretical orientation. Incorporating your theoretical orientation into treatment planning will help you set goals and choose treatment techniques and interventions appropriate for the client(s) you serve (Gehart & Tuttle, 2003). This week you apply two counseling theories, Bowenian and structural, to formulate your treatment planning and apply appropriate interventions.In this Application Assignment, you watch videos of counselors demonstrating the use of Bowenian and structural theories in family counseling. You then formulate treatment plans for the families in the videos, applying the theories in question and justifying the use of appropriate interventions. Keep in mind that while you may not have adopted either of these theories as your theoretical orientation, you should still base your treatment planning and interventions on them for the purposes of this Application Assignment.Reference: Gehart, D. R., & Tuttle, A. R. (2003). Theory-based treatment planning for marriage and family therapists. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.The assignment (4–6 pages) Based on the theory demonstrated in both videos:Define the problem.Formulate a treatment plan including short- and long-term goals.Describe two theory-based interventions you would use and justify your selection.Explain one anticipated outcome of each.Support your Application Assignment with specific references to all resources used in its preparation. You are asked to provide a reference list for all resources, including those in the Learning Resources for this course.Submit your assignment by Day 3.
Application: Applying Bowenian and Structural Theories
i need help writing an essay english course.
Purpose: To effectively present an argument of one of the following types: evaluative, proposal or causal.Mission: Pick an issue you’re passionate about. It can be abstract and philosophical (“Martin Heidegger’s influence on Sartre’s existentialism”) or ordinary and every day (“Why shopping at Wal-Mart is good-times”). Then, argue the issue.So, what’s evaluative? Simple: an evaluation. Judging. Sizing-up. This type of argument evaluates some particular issue, according to some standard of good or bad, strong or weak. You can evaluate the strength of Hilary Clinton’s platform. You can evaluate the effect the athletic expansion is going to have for MSU Athletics and MSU as a whole. You can evaluate the extent to which Sartre mis/understands Heideggerian phenomenology. You can evaluate the impact of Indian casinos on Oklahoma.What’s a proposal? Simple: should do X. Hilary Clinton should take a tougher stance on immigration. The OSU athletic director should funnel more money into practice fields than housing. Disciples of Sartre should recognize the extent to which his philosophy is closer to nihilism than true existentialism. Lawmakers should pass a bill so that casinos can’t condemn private property adjacent to their resorts.What’s a causal argument? Simple: X caused Y. Y is a result of X. Hilary’s husband is the cause of her current standing in the polls. Ranking 10th of 12 in the Big 12 in terms of facilities is what caused this recent initiative behind the athletic village. Sartre’s philosophy is the result of Heidegger’s popularity in French intellectual circles in the 1930s. Casino revenues have increased state funding for education by 30 percent. Pick a topic, focus on a current debate surrounding that topic, and take a position. THEN, I want you to find three other sources/viewpoints. Important here is that you choose an issue that’s not too broad, not too narrow. Note: I want a variety of perspectives; I do not want you to find three that all conveniently agree with each other (and you).Formal Grading Criteria: You should be able to demonstrate the ability to do the following:•Summarize and define the stakes of a particular argumentative issue•Write a dynamic thesis which proposes a position on that argument•Use effective and well-paragraphed evidence to support that position and to address and respond to the concerns of the opposition.•Artfully integrate and embed quoted material into your essay•Avoid common argumentative pitfalls—i.e. fallacies•Make use of ethos, pathos and logos when forming your argument. You are, after all, trying to convince me (the reader, in this case) that your position is the right one. Word Count: 1800
The oil and gas industry
The oil and gas industry. INTRODUCTION The oil and gas industry is essential to survival of the economy for different purposes. The industry provides energy and chemicals to the economy vital for transport, companies and household in U.K. Through the industry the government earn valuable and substantial tax and export revenue to support the economy. The figure below tells it own tale: v Three quarters of the UK’s primary energy. v Employment for more than 380,000 people. v Has invested £ 150 billion over the last 25 years. v Has paid £ 150 billion in taxes since the 1970s. v Adds £4 billion a year to balance of payments. v Accounts for one-fifth of UK annual investment. (oilcareers.com) This primary aim of this report is to consider key environmental factors that are currently affecting the industry. This will be done through PEST (Political, Environmental, Social and Technological) analysis. This report will also take into consideration rationale of industry and companies chosen for this project, in addition a number of financial ratios will be considered to determine the performance of the companies in the industry. This will help in establishing where each company stands in relation to their competitors; as well allowing the strongest and weakest companies to be determined. RATIONALE FOR INDUSTRY This Oil and Gas industry contribute significantly to the economy. The rationale based on this industry choice is to gain an insight to how prepared companies are regarding the risk posed by climate change. According to a report by Palma (200*) she explored increasing pressure in the Oil and Gas industry face from climate change. She indentified such risk as: Damage to corporate reputation: As the understanding and awareness of the damages posed by climate changes increases and develops, failure to observe and account for the impact of climate change on social and environmental resources is progressively likely to damage company’s status and reputation. Increasing pressure on water resources: There are growing concerns regarding changes in rainfall patterns. This has led to water shortages, poor water quality and drought and flooding has significantly increased the demand for water. For companies that rely heavily on water, increase competition for available resources could create operational problems for companies. Drop in value of financial assets: In order to meet the economy increasing demand for energy, oil and gas companies need to secure further investment for exploration, production, and manufacturing. Shareholders are placing more and more importance on the business impacts of the change, as risk impact cost and revenue drivers. It is probable that insurance cost could rise due to greater chance of physical plant damage because of weather events. Dealing with such risk is not as easy as it may sound, some companies profit may decline due to the necessary changes in order to combat climate change. It will take a collective effort as well as individual effort for the industry to maintain its status as one of Britain’s strongest industry. RATIONALE FOR COMPANY CHOICES The diagram below shows that the companies are similar in size, employees employed and turnover. This makes is easier for comparability purposes in finding out how each company are performing. In addition all companies chosen are in the FTSE 350. JKX Oil and Gas JKX Oil and Gas plc principle activity is developing and producing oil and gas reserve, which is conducted through there subsidiary undertakings. JKX main principle interests are located in Ukraine and in Russia, with further interest in Georgia, Bulgaria and United States. As of December 31, 2008, the Company drilled two exploration wells. As of December 31, 2008, the Company acquired 25% interest in the Svidnik, Medzilaborce and Snina from Aurelian OilThe oil and gas industry
CJU 2250 OCU Costs Associated with Operating a Correctional Facility Discussion
CJU 2250 OCU Costs Associated with Operating a Correctional Facility Discussion.
I need some help with an assignment. Objective 4: Explore the costs associated with operating a correctional facility. Who pays for the inmate’s care while they are locked up? The taxpayers do! As the cost of living increases, so does the cost of housing inmates. Inmates come to jail to be treated for medical issues they cannot get treated for on the outside. Babies are born with taxpayer money. Is this fair to the taxpayer? Programs are offered and paid for by you and me. Read the following article:https://s3.amazonaws.com/ocu.Tontaleya/CJ3500/the-growth-and-increasing-cost-of-the-federal-prison-system.pdfAnswer the following questions making sure to justify your responses:Who should pay for the inmate’s care?How can we recoup some of that money?What are two ideas you can think of on how to save money for the correctional system?
CJU 2250 OCU Costs Associated with Operating a Correctional Facility Discussion