12th February 2007, 06:12 PM
Talking about the planning process can I think be very interesting to the public. If not I will have bored a few hundred people silly at a recent open day. I think not though because the site was a very good example of commercial urban work and different methodologies to "preserve" the archaeological remains. Talking about the implications of PPG16 is also a very good way to answer the perennial question asked by the public, "how do you know where to dig?".
As for presenting a single public face, sounds great, but can archaeologists actually agree what that public face might be?
ps. I also am tired of a portrayal of commercial archs as some kind of lower (read, evil) life form by some amateur groups and by academic archs in general. I think the root of it sadly some misplaced jealousy, which a day on a horrible commercial site would rectify in short order.
As for presenting a single public face, sounds great, but can archaeologists actually agree what that public face might be?
ps. I also am tired of a portrayal of commercial archs as some kind of lower (read, evil) life form by some amateur groups and by academic archs in general. I think the root of it sadly some misplaced jealousy, which a day on a horrible commercial site would rectify in short order.