22nd February 2011, 10:49 AM
I think I see what you mean now. And yes, I agree, commercial archaeology as it is now should embrace what it is in many respects. I'm not sure the minerals lobby are necessarilly pushing to eliminate 'those pesky archaeologists', but I do think they have concerns which they feel are legitimate, and in many ways so do I.
That isn't what I wanted to say, though. A number of the now larger companies (and some of the smaller ones for that matter) were originally structured with the aim of using their commercial income to support the development of non-commercial outlets (lets ignore the fact that this never came to fruition for a variety of reasons). Do you think that this, should it be returned to, would offer something towards what you're getting at?
Or are you suggesting we should move this debate on and push forward this reexamination as individuals, aiming to take our own personally accrued wealth of knowledge and use archaeology itself as a tool within communities and for a completely different (non-heritage) purpose?
That isn't what I wanted to say, though. A number of the now larger companies (and some of the smaller ones for that matter) were originally structured with the aim of using their commercial income to support the development of non-commercial outlets (lets ignore the fact that this never came to fruition for a variety of reasons). Do you think that this, should it be returned to, would offer something towards what you're getting at?
Or are you suggesting we should move this debate on and push forward this reexamination as individuals, aiming to take our own personally accrued wealth of knowledge and use archaeology itself as a tool within communities and for a completely different (non-heritage) purpose?