22nd February 2008, 11:44 AM
Hi
Brilliant post diggingthedirt!
PPG16 has lead to funding tied directly into projects rather than trying to allocate funds from a central source with inherent problems such as never knowing if a more significant site will come up just after you've allocated all you budget. What PPG16 doesn't do is involve directly those who's role it is to integrate new sites/knowledge into existing models. I mean of course academics. However, I have seen maybe four or five visits for professional academics (as opposed to students) into the HER over almost ten years (and those represent two people). After talking to students from a local university about their lecturer who teaches them about a certain towns development, it is clear that he is completely unaware of all the evaluations, excavations and watching briefs which have "disproved" many of his accepted ideas about the town. These PPG16 projects have provided new information (a Roman component not recognised before) and showed that the Saxon town isn't where he says it is.
This lecture even takes students on a tour of this town as he outlines his theories and "evidence". One visit to the HER is all it would take for him to talk sense (and probably get another book/paper out of it).
It strikes me that despite Richard Bradley's warning about academics being so far behind PPG16 archaeology, most don't want to learn. I firmly believe that it is the academics role to synthesise all our information after all PPG16 is not designed to do that.
Steven
Brilliant post diggingthedirt!
PPG16 has lead to funding tied directly into projects rather than trying to allocate funds from a central source with inherent problems such as never knowing if a more significant site will come up just after you've allocated all you budget. What PPG16 doesn't do is involve directly those who's role it is to integrate new sites/knowledge into existing models. I mean of course academics. However, I have seen maybe four or five visits for professional academics (as opposed to students) into the HER over almost ten years (and those represent two people). After talking to students from a local university about their lecturer who teaches them about a certain towns development, it is clear that he is completely unaware of all the evaluations, excavations and watching briefs which have "disproved" many of his accepted ideas about the town. These PPG16 projects have provided new information (a Roman component not recognised before) and showed that the Saxon town isn't where he says it is.
This lecture even takes students on a tour of this town as he outlines his theories and "evidence". One visit to the HER is all it would take for him to talk sense (and probably get another book/paper out of it).
It strikes me that despite Richard Bradley's warning about academics being so far behind PPG16 archaeology, most don't want to learn. I firmly believe that it is the academics role to synthesise all our information after all PPG16 is not designed to do that.
Steven