5th March 2005, 02:31 PM
Yes cheers Troll, I'm fine, trust you're the same! Well yes, I am rather playing devil's advocate. Ancient landcapes, call them what you will, are indeed as important and the monument and require careful consideration, from a "what is best" rather than a "what can we afford" approach. Can it ever be totally satisfactory - can we really replicate a later neolithic landscape? Even if we could put identical vegatation back, the landscape would have a different meaning to us and thus not be a replica. And which period if the long life of a monument should we aim to replicate? But this is fruitless and fanciful pedantary of course, I know what you mean.
I suspect that you share my increasing view that archaeology is not an appropriate discipline for fully competetive commercial activity -I do not mean to criticise those who make their living in this way, I have nothing but admiration for those who I have met. I just feel that it is un unhappy and "forced" set of ill-considered relationships and procedures, not properly thought out at all. I fear that we are stuck with it now though, and any improvements will be patch-ups.
Development tax perhaps? Fundemental change in law, such that the past belongs to the nation, not to whoever owns the bit of land it's on or under?
I suspect that you share my increasing view that archaeology is not an appropriate discipline for fully competetive commercial activity -I do not mean to criticise those who make their living in this way, I have nothing but admiration for those who I have met. I just feel that it is un unhappy and "forced" set of ill-considered relationships and procedures, not properly thought out at all. I fear that we are stuck with it now though, and any improvements will be patch-ups.
Development tax perhaps? Fundemental change in law, such that the past belongs to the nation, not to whoever owns the bit of land it's on or under?