12th October 2010, 10:41 AM
No absolutely, we are interested in discussion, it's just I wish people would read the stuff before criticising it....
So the transit van then. Ok I didn't understand that project, and I was clear about that, and I still don't. What I did discuss was the effect of projects like that on public perceptions of archaeology and whether such a project could be justified in terms of financing this project compared to other ones, specifically social projects in deprived parts of Bristol. Now I know by not funding this project money suddenly wouldn't appear in the account of an adult literacy programme, but it is still valid to ask if the finances of this project could have been better spent?
But I did place up the stated objectives of the project in their own terms. It's hard to discuss these meaningfuly as I don't believe in them. I wondered at the time were we seeing an archaeological equivalent of the debate about what constitutes art. Specifically I was wondering if they were trying to examine the boundaries of what can be considered archaeology, but this does not seem to have been their objective. I also wondered if it was simply a publicity stunt, as it is immediately headline grabbing stuff, and was there a policy at Bristol of all publicity is good publicity? Again this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case as they published it properly, but saying that, they certainly saw fit to plaster it over the front of British Archaeology. Perhaps if I had done this project, and it was a serious research endevour, I may have been a little bit more discrete about it.
Now I wonder how that transit van went down on boards like this when it first came out?
As to your other suggestions those are really interesting. When dealing with early modern and 20th century material there is always a danger of straying into the pointless. One of the projects I am involved in looks at a range of rural settlement sites that were occupied mostly in the 19th century but some of them well into the 20th century. We are always being asked "what's the point" both by locals, other archaeologists and general visitors. In our case the point is that there as there is only a small amount of historical data, and that's often contradictory, then archaeological techniques can provide useful information. Whilst our results are of no massive significance, they have for instance altered our understanding of the quantity and types of imported ceramics present in the far west of Ireland, and the level of personal items that were taken to transhumant summer camps.
World War 2 defenses are another case where, in my opinion, archaeology has a lot to offer, and the Defense of Britain project is great. From that I learnt the 'bombey' we used to play on as kids was actual a Bofor medium anti aircraft gun emplacement, and that the concrete bollards down where the railway crossed the cannal were not put there by the council to stop travellers moving onto the site, but to stop German tanks advancing across the midlands. Awesome! But that sort of thing works really well for two reasons; one becuse there isn't allways adequate historical material to cover what was built and also what still survives, so you certainly need something like archaeology, although other approaches can work just as well; secondly because it is of interest to a great many people, well beyond the boundaries of the normal archaeological audience.
I think with these projects the two key questions to ask are;
1) Are archaeological techniques the best way to access the information
2) Is the information worth getting
Additionally with site work on 20th century stuff I would suggest at least questioning whether it's worth giving it the full whack of excavation or not. Do you want to use the same sort of detailed strategraphic recording as you would on older sites? In some cases perhaps you would, I think in others maybe not.
As I wrote on the CSA page when the Tuscon Garbage project came up
"I'll get some more stuff on this tomorrow. I actually think this one deserves some close attention, because there may be some justification for it, depending on the methods and what they did with the results. "
Now I never did go looking for that information and the question posed on the site is presently unresolved (only for us I'm sure that project has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere). I don't think this sort of discussion on the site indicates a mindless reactionism though.
So the transit van then. Ok I didn't understand that project, and I was clear about that, and I still don't. What I did discuss was the effect of projects like that on public perceptions of archaeology and whether such a project could be justified in terms of financing this project compared to other ones, specifically social projects in deprived parts of Bristol. Now I know by not funding this project money suddenly wouldn't appear in the account of an adult literacy programme, but it is still valid to ask if the finances of this project could have been better spent?
But I did place up the stated objectives of the project in their own terms. It's hard to discuss these meaningfuly as I don't believe in them. I wondered at the time were we seeing an archaeological equivalent of the debate about what constitutes art. Specifically I was wondering if they were trying to examine the boundaries of what can be considered archaeology, but this does not seem to have been their objective. I also wondered if it was simply a publicity stunt, as it is immediately headline grabbing stuff, and was there a policy at Bristol of all publicity is good publicity? Again this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case as they published it properly, but saying that, they certainly saw fit to plaster it over the front of British Archaeology. Perhaps if I had done this project, and it was a serious research endevour, I may have been a little bit more discrete about it.
Now I wonder how that transit van went down on boards like this when it first came out?
As to your other suggestions those are really interesting. When dealing with early modern and 20th century material there is always a danger of straying into the pointless. One of the projects I am involved in looks at a range of rural settlement sites that were occupied mostly in the 19th century but some of them well into the 20th century. We are always being asked "what's the point" both by locals, other archaeologists and general visitors. In our case the point is that there as there is only a small amount of historical data, and that's often contradictory, then archaeological techniques can provide useful information. Whilst our results are of no massive significance, they have for instance altered our understanding of the quantity and types of imported ceramics present in the far west of Ireland, and the level of personal items that were taken to transhumant summer camps.
World War 2 defenses are another case where, in my opinion, archaeology has a lot to offer, and the Defense of Britain project is great. From that I learnt the 'bombey' we used to play on as kids was actual a Bofor medium anti aircraft gun emplacement, and that the concrete bollards down where the railway crossed the cannal were not put there by the council to stop travellers moving onto the site, but to stop German tanks advancing across the midlands. Awesome! But that sort of thing works really well for two reasons; one becuse there isn't allways adequate historical material to cover what was built and also what still survives, so you certainly need something like archaeology, although other approaches can work just as well; secondly because it is of interest to a great many people, well beyond the boundaries of the normal archaeological audience.
I think with these projects the two key questions to ask are;
1) Are archaeological techniques the best way to access the information
2) Is the information worth getting
Additionally with site work on 20th century stuff I would suggest at least questioning whether it's worth giving it the full whack of excavation or not. Do you want to use the same sort of detailed strategraphic recording as you would on older sites? In some cases perhaps you would, I think in others maybe not.
As I wrote on the CSA page when the Tuscon Garbage project came up
"I'll get some more stuff on this tomorrow. I actually think this one deserves some close attention, because there may be some justification for it, depending on the methods and what they did with the results. "
Now I never did go looking for that information and the question posed on the site is presently unresolved (only for us I'm sure that project has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere). I don't think this sort of discussion on the site indicates a mindless reactionism though.