8th July 2008, 11:51 AM
I believe this is the nub of the dilemia I have to say I find the original article a bit biased in its standpoint. For example it says:
"Why did we become archaeologists if not to protect and defend culture?"
I believe this is the nub of the dilemma - is archaeology a protest movement against capitalism and development or is it an academic subject which studies the past. It is naive to think as a consultant you are there to lobby for the protection of archaeology. In Ireland as in England the choice of what is protected is ultimately made by a democratically elected and accountable person not somebody interested in one particular aspect of academic study accountable to no one.
What is needed is a balance between the needs of conservation and the needs of the modern world. An Archaeologists working as a consultant needs objectivity and blinkers so that the archaeological results can be kept in perspective. As a profession we cannot say we will only work on the developments we consider ethically correct or personally agree with. We do not have that luxury.
The article did not mention that the Duchas reviewed the system of heritage protection a number of years ago and addressed many of the issues commented on in the article. Neither did it mention the flaws there are in how the impact of archaeology can be assessed in strategic planning and how these are being addressed.
What I am sure about is situations like Tara are far rarer than they were 20 years before the EU introduced Environmental Impact Assessment and much has been protected by the current system.
Peter Wardle
(I am not saying they got it right at Tara or the choice or route was right)
"Why did we become archaeologists if not to protect and defend culture?"
I believe this is the nub of the dilemma - is archaeology a protest movement against capitalism and development or is it an academic subject which studies the past. It is naive to think as a consultant you are there to lobby for the protection of archaeology. In Ireland as in England the choice of what is protected is ultimately made by a democratically elected and accountable person not somebody interested in one particular aspect of academic study accountable to no one.
What is needed is a balance between the needs of conservation and the needs of the modern world. An Archaeologists working as a consultant needs objectivity and blinkers so that the archaeological results can be kept in perspective. As a profession we cannot say we will only work on the developments we consider ethically correct or personally agree with. We do not have that luxury.
The article did not mention that the Duchas reviewed the system of heritage protection a number of years ago and addressed many of the issues commented on in the article. Neither did it mention the flaws there are in how the impact of archaeology can be assessed in strategic planning and how these are being addressed.
What I am sure about is situations like Tara are far rarer than they were 20 years before the EU introduced Environmental Impact Assessment and much has been protected by the current system.
Peter Wardle
(I am not saying they got it right at Tara or the choice or route was right)