The Herit Age

[troll]

Frogs...... I like verily the shaking of treeage.

Can be a nightmare however.....

1. One ends up covered in useless waste that is only nourishment for the tree itself
2. A tree with deeply rooted foundations won`t move
3. One can find themselves covered in crawly things
4. Old rotten trees can fall on one when shaken
5. One becomes vulnerable to lightening strikes

Might be best to graft new branches on and if that fails, carpe chainsawum.

[P Prentice]

mortimer is dead

[diggingthedirt]

And has been for a good while!

Hi there Prentice,

I think you?ve highlighted a flaw with this argument that underpins one of the central planks of the case for archaeology ? as pushed by everyone from the CBA to the CM&S Select Committee (from whom I presume you are using your figures ? counted at ?7.4bn for annual heritage tourism).

To quote you in full:

The indisputably lucrative heritage market is based on millions spending billions in order to experience an historic environment that is understood through the lens of historical perspective. Archaeology widens and deepens historical perspective and thus promulgates understanding of the historic environment. Archaeologists are therefore essential to the ever-growing heritage market.

And to break the argument down into its constituent clauses:

1. The heritage market is worth billions because people want to experience and understand the past through the lens of a historical perspective.
   
2. Archaeology helps people experience and understand the past through the lens of a historical perspective.
   
3. Archaeology is therefore essential to the ever-growing heritage market and consequently worth billions.
   

This all sounds very reasonable, but to my mind it?s erring dangerously close to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. See below:

1. If the heritage market is worth billions, archaeology (an essential part of the heritage market) must be important.
   
2. The heritage market is worth billions.
   
3. Therefore, archaeology is important.
   

I realise that this isn?t exactly what you have written, but I have broken it down in this way to highlight the logic steps behind the ?archaeology benefits the wider economy? argument. Even if the first two steps in the chain are true, it doesn?t necessarily flow that the conclusion is secure. Archaeology is not the only sufficient condition for the heritage market being worth billions ? there are many other factors that account for this.

I would argue that archaeology has an extremely marginal part to play in the production and maintenance of those Heritage billions ? certainly the dirt archaeology that you and I and many on this forum practice. The Royal Family could also be counted as a major heritage tourist draw, and not surprisingly the same ?heritage billions? arguments are trotted out to protect them from the axe mans blade too.

[P Prentice]

yo diggin
i had in mind a model of a jigsaw called the past. the blue sky bits which surround the dusky maiden wearing the crown jewels (why not?) we dont really look at because they are boring (and lets face it most of what we do is) compared to the central attraction, but we can never see a complete picture without them.

but then i thought - we just need to tell better stories and then people would see we were worth it

[Sith]

My comments in relation to nurses, teachers, plumbers and binmen were in terms of their value to society as a whole, not in terms of how much they get paid. My argument was basically that groups such as these undertake work that has some social benefit, whether this is in terms of healing the sick, educating the young, cleaning up rubbish or ensuring sanitary living conditions. Therefore they could have a claim to provide an important social function.

So were mine. I meant that the prevailing world view in this country seems to be based only on the perceived value of an individual's quantifiable 'social benefit' (i.e. that they either heal/help people or make something that can be measured). I'm afraid that to most outsiders, professional archaeology (in all its forms) provides no social benefit... Except for keeping 'hard-working tax payers' in work of course.

[deadlylampshade]

...but then i thought - we just need to tell better stories and then people would see we were worth it

Are we in a position where we need to do better things - or do things better?

[P Prentice]

Are we in a position where we need to do better things - or do things better?

well there's the rub

by and large we do the things we get paid to do so i will pump for 'things better'

[Boxoffrogs]

This is all beginning to read like a TAG lecture ...or worse still a lecture on Post Processual Archaeology...or was that New Archaeology?..help me out here Prof Whittle !

[Dinosaur]

.... I meant that the prevailing world view in this country seems to be based only on the perceived value of an individual's quantifiable 'social benefit' (i.e. that they either heal/help people or make something that can be measured)....

The holes my lot have been making for the last few weeks can indeed be measured...in fact that's my main task tomorrow morning, working out percentages we still have to deal with and keeping the client happy (or not, depending on the results...) }

[P Prentice]

The holes my lot have been making for the last few weeks can indeed be measured...in fact that's my main task tomorrow morning, working out percentages we still have to deal with and keeping the client happy (or not, depending on the results...) }

i hope you are not saying that you have percentaged your cursus?