15th June 2005, 11:07 PM
just a quick one - i wasn't implying any less value to buried archaeolgy compared to upstanding, merely that unless upstanding it is not part of the ritual landscape that we can observe. Obviously, if you were the people that buried it in the first place then it would have a role in the ideological landscape existing on another level, but we in the present have no way of entering that place without the process of excavation.
I suppose what i was trying to say, perhaps badly, is that the ritual landscape argument for protecting the surrounding environment of a site is one that can quite easily be undermined, and therefore more coherent arguments and strategies must be in place to be able to fight abuses within the (what has already been highlighted as the inadequate, and usually developer-biased) framework with which we have to work.
I'm also appreciating Moley's post. How many among us when starting out in whatever manner to become field archaeologists envisaged the dry reports which herald the completion of a site being the end product? Where is the interpretation and development of a constantly growing framework of knowledge? I shudder to think at all the information buried away in grey literature which, if pieced together, might revolutionise our view of so much that happened, the how's, why's and wherefore's. I believe Moley is spot on as well in the notion that it has to be built in as a planning authority requirement, simple time/money considerations make that a must in the world of competetive tenders.
Any ideas as to how we can make this happen?
I suppose what i was trying to say, perhaps badly, is that the ritual landscape argument for protecting the surrounding environment of a site is one that can quite easily be undermined, and therefore more coherent arguments and strategies must be in place to be able to fight abuses within the (what has already been highlighted as the inadequate, and usually developer-biased) framework with which we have to work.
I'm also appreciating Moley's post. How many among us when starting out in whatever manner to become field archaeologists envisaged the dry reports which herald the completion of a site being the end product? Where is the interpretation and development of a constantly growing framework of knowledge? I shudder to think at all the information buried away in grey literature which, if pieced together, might revolutionise our view of so much that happened, the how's, why's and wherefore's. I believe Moley is spot on as well in the notion that it has to be built in as a planning authority requirement, simple time/money considerations make that a must in the world of competetive tenders.
Any ideas as to how we can make this happen?