22nd February 2011, 09:05 AM
Which is why in my piece I decide to berate everyone. (myself included)
It is hard to argue with this
without having to point at 'the other' and say... but they are doing it too, as if this somehow justifies commercial archaeology.
Commercial archaeology has left records over the country, commercial archaeology has done many great things , commercial archaeology reports also relate specifically to exactly the brief (well thats the job of course) so a roman site that can be left in situ remains as that... a Roman site... er... um... So a saxon cemetery is fully excavated but the village that it comes from is not as it lies outside the development area... er um... the roman road that leads to a river is recorded, but there is no attempt to look for how it gets across. Constraints from commercial requirement.
Thats just the way it is. But is it archaeology? Is archaeology not about following the lead? joining the dots? understanding as much about the whole? Or does it stop at the site boundary and stop at the preserved in situ deposit or perhaps even the end of the contractual period. Archaeology really does not.
Can I do the same to Academics? yes... what about community groups... probably... (the Open Archive system was carefully given no help or support by those that could for example, and was designed to cheaply sort that issue)
All I argue for is that the various groups stop saying it is not their fault, but get together and make it work.
Whats has anyone done to embrace anything in the past 20 years?
It is hard to argue with this
Quote: Knowledge is no longer our official currency: at best it represents the loose change rattling around in our pockets, and accepting mitigation archaeology and preservation in situ as methodologies for managing the archaeological resource ensures a lack of progress and decline in data and information.
without having to point at 'the other' and say... but they are doing it too, as if this somehow justifies commercial archaeology.
Commercial archaeology has left records over the country, commercial archaeology has done many great things , commercial archaeology reports also relate specifically to exactly the brief (well thats the job of course) so a roman site that can be left in situ remains as that... a Roman site... er... um... So a saxon cemetery is fully excavated but the village that it comes from is not as it lies outside the development area... er um... the roman road that leads to a river is recorded, but there is no attempt to look for how it gets across. Constraints from commercial requirement.
Thats just the way it is. But is it archaeology? Is archaeology not about following the lead? joining the dots? understanding as much about the whole? Or does it stop at the site boundary and stop at the preserved in situ deposit or perhaps even the end of the contractual period. Archaeology really does not.
Can I do the same to Academics? yes... what about community groups... probably... (the Open Archive system was carefully given no help or support by those that could for example, and was designed to cheaply sort that issue)
All I argue for is that the various groups stop saying it is not their fault, but get together and make it work.
Whats has anyone done to embrace anything in the past 20 years?