13th October 2005, 10:58 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
...Archaeology has an absolute, not a relative value. Or, the same remains in different parts of the country or different circumstances, are the same remains and have the same real value. It cannot be right for their location in our present landscape to cause one to be treated proparly and the other trashed.
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
I had a particular issue with something along these lines recently to do with ridge and furrow field systems. Until recently, centrally there were more in existance therefore protection for them was less than those in for example Hampshire where there were fewer. I can't say I disagree with your point Inv Man, but certainly I would say that all archaeology has a baseline importance, with some being more so (i feel myself moving towards all archaeological sites are equal, its just some are more equal than others - misquote heaven). This goes towards the point of dealing with the archaeological resource on a regional basis, and possibly from the curators point of view picking the fights you think you have a cat in hells chance of winning (which is a thoroughly shabby state of affairs
).