23rd September 2010, 04:16 PM
UO1 said:
Hi
Don't presume what I believe, you don't have the imagination! Speak for yourself NOT for me!
As I work for a heritage group we are also responsible for storage of archive and records which we do on behalf of tax payers so your post is clearly based on your limited experience (of perhaps a single county or something). Your grasp of the complexities of curation are astonishing for somebody responsible for very small watching briefs and producing a basic coherent record to fulfil a client's planning condition. Well, amazing a man who can't operate a spell check, with a shoulder chip because his reports get refused lecturing people about museums and their relationship to archives and planning authorities! Talk about ignorance with a capital I. As for sanctimonious, have you read your own posts, I haven't seen such smug, ill thought out drivel since I had my last laugh at the Daily Express "have your say" bit on their website.
So you don't dribble nonsense about what I believe again, I actually believe that the ownership of archaeology isn't the important thing. In fact I'm a developer lead funding advocate and I don't agree with draconian laws governing state ownership of artefacts. I think the important thing is to preserve heritage as much as possible and to record it where it needs to be so that people can study it.
The reason your reports might get refused is you fail to grasp the very simple idea that your records have to be appropriate for further study or critique, or testability and are not just a vanity product for your ego!
Quote:It all about curation. I get up in the morning and say that I am an archaeologist. I believe that there is a demand for my product and see that product as being produced from observations made in context. Steve gets paid to get up in the morning to believe that the archaeology belongs to the state. A sanctimonious bureaucracy has grow up from this situation which demands an archive where things like the details of the project bureaucracy become part of that archive and as hosty has pointed out even a project that found, in his opinion, nothing was for what ever reason seen as unsatisfactory, by some dubiously appointed authority, for curation. But this authority has absolutely no responsibility to the “museum”. The thing that could be a death mask proves conclusively in a democratic, what the public wants world that they want shiny things and not hostys seven pillars of nothing there. The state should stop inventing curators who don’t live in museums who don’t have the responsibility of storage and entropy to deal with, but who think that their standards and guidance’s are justification in themselves.
Unfortunately archaeologists also have a long way to go to take over the museums from the bunch of charlatans who control them. The evolution of commercial archaeology not only created the pusedo curator it also cut archaeologists off from museums.
Hi
Don't presume what I believe, you don't have the imagination! Speak for yourself NOT for me!
As I work for a heritage group we are also responsible for storage of archive and records which we do on behalf of tax payers so your post is clearly based on your limited experience (of perhaps a single county or something). Your grasp of the complexities of curation are astonishing for somebody responsible for very small watching briefs and producing a basic coherent record to fulfil a client's planning condition. Well, amazing a man who can't operate a spell check, with a shoulder chip because his reports get refused lecturing people about museums and their relationship to archives and planning authorities! Talk about ignorance with a capital I. As for sanctimonious, have you read your own posts, I haven't seen such smug, ill thought out drivel since I had my last laugh at the Daily Express "have your say" bit on their website.
So you don't dribble nonsense about what I believe again, I actually believe that the ownership of archaeology isn't the important thing. In fact I'm a developer lead funding advocate and I don't agree with draconian laws governing state ownership of artefacts. I think the important thing is to preserve heritage as much as possible and to record it where it needs to be so that people can study it.
The reason your reports might get refused is you fail to grasp the very simple idea that your records have to be appropriate for further study or critique, or testability and are not just a vanity product for your ego!
Steven