5th April 2009, 09:20 AM
Apologies for resurrecting an older thread here but the comments above have wet me whistle. First- I like Gorillas analogy with the legal system but take issue with one point in particular. "Expert witness" or otherwise, evidence presented in most cases where expert witnesses are required by the CPS is given in a Crown Court and therefore by default, in the precense of a jury, the media and in most cases-an open court where members of the public have the right to attend. The expert witness should (in an ideal world) present evidence gleaned from accepted levels of investigative practises. It is then for the jury to weigh everything they hear. Whilst arguably, an expert witness should be a paragon of objectivity, a jury will by default be both objective and subjective in their deliberations.
In the world of archaeology, we are often guilty of providing "just so" stories through basic and oversimplistic narratives derived from minimalist field techniques. This is regularly cited as being the direct result of competitive tendering coupled (crippled?) by PPG16 that has more holes in it than a stringy vest. If indeed archaeology suddenly woke to find that our conclusions had to be tested by law within a court system- our house of cards would fall apart as the great majority of cases would be dropped by the CPS before even getting to court. Those that did reach the dock, would probably be thrown out by the jury before their kettle had boiled.
Complacency and the vissisitudes (appalling spelling) of competitive archaeology has led to a profession that carries out and accepts the minimum. Subjectivity is rampant. A superb example of subjective nonsense can be seen on the BAJR thread archaeology in the news where an Italian archaeologist breaks into the realms of pure fantasy unfettered by the norms of good practise.
On the Thornbourough Henges issue the case is clear- leave it alone and preserve it from development. I have seen the "objectivity" of the ex-County Mounty involved with that little fiasco first hand and if anyone should be torn to shreds by a competent barrister it is him. The difference between archaeology and the legal system? We are not held to account and made to stand before the jury of the public.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
In the world of archaeology, we are often guilty of providing "just so" stories through basic and oversimplistic narratives derived from minimalist field techniques. This is regularly cited as being the direct result of competitive tendering coupled (crippled?) by PPG16 that has more holes in it than a stringy vest. If indeed archaeology suddenly woke to find that our conclusions had to be tested by law within a court system- our house of cards would fall apart as the great majority of cases would be dropped by the CPS before even getting to court. Those that did reach the dock, would probably be thrown out by the jury before their kettle had boiled.
Complacency and the vissisitudes (appalling spelling) of competitive archaeology has led to a profession that carries out and accepts the minimum. Subjectivity is rampant. A superb example of subjective nonsense can be seen on the BAJR thread archaeology in the news where an Italian archaeologist breaks into the realms of pure fantasy unfettered by the norms of good practise.
On the Thornbourough Henges issue the case is clear- leave it alone and preserve it from development. I have seen the "objectivity" of the ex-County Mounty involved with that little fiasco first hand and if anyone should be torn to shreds by a competent barrister it is him. The difference between archaeology and the legal system? We are not held to account and made to stand before the jury of the public.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)