23rd January 2006, 10:56 AM
Thanks for the responses. I myself have some reservations about the value of recording some 'contemporary archaeology' but I think we have to be very careful about making value judgements today on what to keep for tomorrow. I believe in 'total' archaeology, starting at yesterday and going back all the way to the ice age. Every period on every site should be given equal priority.
OK I agree that sometimes we have to compromise, but we should try and stick to that principle as much as possible. Gone are the days when we machine away the post-medieval to get to whatever is underneath.
And why not record graffiti? In other areas of archaeology we often deal with ephemeral remains. We are always trying to tease out stories from perspectives other than that of the 'official' version of events - eg. looking at 19th century workers housing in the same way as the House of Lords (whatever our individual perspective on Catholic emancipation in the 17th century - troll!).
Although perhaps rather pretentiously expressed, the issues raised in the archaeology of the Blitz project are important. We have found that excavation and recording of 20th century sites (specifically, in fact, workers housing!) has been fascinating. We have been able to engage with members of the community who are otherwise not interested in 'proper' archaeology - some very interesting perspectives emerge when we deal with a blend of archaeology, memory and social history in this way.
One more question, just out of curiosity...
If the place where your grandfather used to work was being demolished, would you not want to see it recorded archaeologically (up to and including the time he finished working there)? Even if it was sat on top of a monumental henge complex?
OK I agree that sometimes we have to compromise, but we should try and stick to that principle as much as possible. Gone are the days when we machine away the post-medieval to get to whatever is underneath.
And why not record graffiti? In other areas of archaeology we often deal with ephemeral remains. We are always trying to tease out stories from perspectives other than that of the 'official' version of events - eg. looking at 19th century workers housing in the same way as the House of Lords (whatever our individual perspective on Catholic emancipation in the 17th century - troll!).
Although perhaps rather pretentiously expressed, the issues raised in the archaeology of the Blitz project are important. We have found that excavation and recording of 20th century sites (specifically, in fact, workers housing!) has been fascinating. We have been able to engage with members of the community who are otherwise not interested in 'proper' archaeology - some very interesting perspectives emerge when we deal with a blend of archaeology, memory and social history in this way.
One more question, just out of curiosity...
If the place where your grandfather used to work was being demolished, would you not want to see it recorded archaeologically (up to and including the time he finished working there)? Even if it was sat on top of a monumental henge complex?