4th November 2005, 09:11 PM
I heartily agree with most points you all offer.It does occur to me though that;
1. all archaeology is interesting if it`s explained properly.
2. If live urban sites are dangerous for the public to visit....since when do archaeologists working on them suddenly become non-members of the public?Seriously guys-when professional indemnity insurance runs into hundreds of pounds a year and public libility- a few quid, what are we saying?Seriously again-I don`t buy the argument that it`s ok for archaeologists to work in dangerous conditions but anathema to allow mop`s to visit them.I am a member of the public!
On a humourous note-a colleague of mine had huge amounts of fun painting strangely-shaped Human bodies this side of the hoarding-leaving the cut-hole for Mr/Mrs publics head.Who needs Brighton?!!
1. all archaeology is interesting if it`s explained properly.
2. If live urban sites are dangerous for the public to visit....since when do archaeologists working on them suddenly become non-members of the public?Seriously guys-when professional indemnity insurance runs into hundreds of pounds a year and public libility- a few quid, what are we saying?Seriously again-I don`t buy the argument that it`s ok for archaeologists to work in dangerous conditions but anathema to allow mop`s to visit them.I am a member of the public!
On a humourous note-a colleague of mine had huge amounts of fun painting strangely-shaped Human bodies this side of the hoarding-leaving the cut-hole for Mr/Mrs publics head.Who needs Brighton?!!