20th October 2006, 01:34 PM
I though it might be interesting to add in the publics point of view
In 2000 English Heritage undertook a survey and asked a representative 3000 people in England various questions about their view of heritage (which archaeology is obviously a part of)
96% think that the historic environment is important to teach them about the past,
87% then said it plays an important part in cultural life of the country and
76% felt their lives where richer having the opportunity to visit or see it (this included heritage sites, museums and excavation sites).
Not sure if this can translate into essential but its a very high percentage. Just because people do not run around going archaeology is brilliant - unlike maybe football fans - does not means it is not important to how they live.
The fact that archaeology as a practice came into being at all suggests that
quote
"relying on their skalds and scribes and old wives tales to negotiate their relationships with their past"
was not sufficient for people in the recent present. Archaeology came about as a reaction/need expressed by people and what archaeology is concieved to be changes and develops (to those needs) so that if someone said archaeology is not essential lets get rid of it - where would you start? It is not just the act of digging things up. A new area, for example, that is developing now and creating loads of discussion is public/community archaeology which is a whole field that requires exploration and development (and potentially jobs!)
This relates to Searchers question about the wealth of information we already have - a large part of archaeology is interpreting - reinterpreting even if we stopped digging tomo archaeology would not stop as a discipline. Not that I think we should stop(before anyone jumps down my throat!). At the beginning of the 20th century there were people who thought they had all the answers from digging and look how much things have changed since then, there is so much more we can do, many suggested by others here.
Also throughout the past we can see evidence of people using objects to relate to their past and you have open air museums in the Roman times (even if it was just to show off what you owned - its still this connecting with the past) - we are not all that new just maybe more self aware.
I would add though that there are some archaeologists that maybe think they are more essential to the world than they really are!!!!!
Also I agree with lots of other stuff people have said but you could go on forever - personally though I like the Invisible mans answer the best.
In 2000 English Heritage undertook a survey and asked a representative 3000 people in England various questions about their view of heritage (which archaeology is obviously a part of)
96% think that the historic environment is important to teach them about the past,
87% then said it plays an important part in cultural life of the country and
76% felt their lives where richer having the opportunity to visit or see it (this included heritage sites, museums and excavation sites).
Not sure if this can translate into essential but its a very high percentage. Just because people do not run around going archaeology is brilliant - unlike maybe football fans - does not means it is not important to how they live.
The fact that archaeology as a practice came into being at all suggests that
quote
"relying on their skalds and scribes and old wives tales to negotiate their relationships with their past"
was not sufficient for people in the recent present. Archaeology came about as a reaction/need expressed by people and what archaeology is concieved to be changes and develops (to those needs) so that if someone said archaeology is not essential lets get rid of it - where would you start? It is not just the act of digging things up. A new area, for example, that is developing now and creating loads of discussion is public/community archaeology which is a whole field that requires exploration and development (and potentially jobs!)
This relates to Searchers question about the wealth of information we already have - a large part of archaeology is interpreting - reinterpreting even if we stopped digging tomo archaeology would not stop as a discipline. Not that I think we should stop(before anyone jumps down my throat!). At the beginning of the 20th century there were people who thought they had all the answers from digging and look how much things have changed since then, there is so much more we can do, many suggested by others here.
Also throughout the past we can see evidence of people using objects to relate to their past and you have open air museums in the Roman times (even if it was just to show off what you owned - its still this connecting with the past) - we are not all that new just maybe more self aware.
I would add though that there are some archaeologists that maybe think they are more essential to the world than they really are!!!!!
Also I agree with lots of other stuff people have said but you could go on forever - personally though I like the Invisible mans answer the best.