23rd January 2006, 02:30 PM
The AGE of something does not necessarily reflect its VALUE. If you look at the criteria for scheduleing a monument, for example, as given in the 1979 AMAA Act, rarity, condition and group value are also taken into account. Sorry Troll, but you can't call the older stuff 'real' and the newer stuff less so.
So, using that criteria, a WW1 or 2 structure or group or a 19th century industrial factory could be considered of being of a higher heritage value than that same old bronze age field system that we saw down the road last week. Many, many examples.
You can get a huge amount of value and public goodwill from excavating fairly recent sites, and they can also make excellent training and teaching opportunities.
A different take on the works at Shoreditch is in IFA The Archaeologist autumn 2005, where they say that they did not need DATING evidence as so much about the site was known, but what they did get was a lot more on the socio-economic side of things than had been understood previously.
ML
So, using that criteria, a WW1 or 2 structure or group or a 19th century industrial factory could be considered of being of a higher heritage value than that same old bronze age field system that we saw down the road last week. Many, many examples.
You can get a huge amount of value and public goodwill from excavating fairly recent sites, and they can also make excellent training and teaching opportunities.
A different take on the works at Shoreditch is in IFA The Archaeologist autumn 2005, where they say that they did not need DATING evidence as so much about the site was known, but what they did get was a lot more on the socio-economic side of things than had been understood previously.
ML