Contemporary Archaeology

[historic building]

I have to say i agree with Paul, archaeology starts yesterday. However if i took that attitude at work my in box would need a greater level of structural support to contain the volume of paper which it would generate. I would probably also need more phones to answer the calls from baffled planners who would be applying and condition or following recommendations.

I think what would be needed is some form study to indicate what could potentially be important and then worthy of recording/protection along the lines of the Defence of Britain Project but it would need to be massive in scale. With something along those lines which could be referred to it may well be possible to start recording and protecting 'sites' in an organised way.

[gumbo]

From Pauls last post: 'Although perhaps rather pretentiously expressed, the issues raised in the archaeology of the Blitz project are important. We have found that excavation and recording of 20th century sites (specifically, in fact, workers housing!) has been fascinating. We have been able to engage with members of the community who are otherwise not interested in 'proper' archaeology - some very interesting perspectives emerge when we deal with a blend of archaeology, memory and social history in this way'.

I completely agree. However, rather amusingly Current Archaeology 201 seems to be confused on this matter. In the 'Books' section there is a hidden bit of polemic...

'Not that Combat Archaeology is lacking in theory; on the contrary, there is a lot of it. But it is always the same 'post-modernist' nonsense currently so fashionable in parts of academia. 'This is a post-modern narrative', we are told 'recognising the relevance and validity of all'... Is it hopelessly old-fashioned of some of us to go on believing there is some sort of relationship between evidence and interpretation? That the hard, material, archaeological evidence ... is actually some sort of constraint on which interpretations can be considered 'relevant and valid'? Besides, if, regardless of the evidence, all interpretations are to be deemed 'relevant and valid', why, pray do we bother digging things up to find evidence in the first place?

Isnt this an attack on the multivocality (or, in other words, 'recognising the relevance and validity of all') that the Shoreditch project is promoting?

Im probably doing a dis service to both authors by quoting out of context, but there is a serious point here. People (perhaps English Heritage) will, (or perhaps already have) decided if conflict/20th century archaeology is worhwhile or a priority. If, on the one hand the Shoreditch project is claiming that 'little can be learnt from excavation that is not already known', and so have elevated the multi-interpretation/ viewpoint angle, whilst on the other, Current Archaeology are simultaneously suggesting that 'why bother digging things up'if regardless of evidence all interpretations are deemed 'relevant and valid', surely it becomes far harder to justify this sort of work (which is a shame because I thought the Shoreditch project looked really good).

Just a thought.

Gumbo

[monitor lizard]

The AGE of something does not necessarily reflect its VALUE. If you look at the criteria for scheduleing a monument, for example, as given in the 1979 AMAA Act, rarity, condition and group value are also taken into account. Sorry Troll, but you can't call the older stuff 'real' and the newer stuff less so.

So, using that criteria, a WW1 or 2 structure or group or a 19th century industrial factory could be considered of being of a higher heritage value than that same old bronze age field system that we saw down the road last week. Many, many examples.

You can get a huge amount of value and public goodwill from excavating fairly recent sites, and they can also make excellent training and teaching opportunities.

A different take on the works at Shoreditch is in IFA The Archaeologist autumn 2005, where they say that they did not need DATING evidence as so much about the site was known, but what they did get was a lot more on the socio-economic side of things than had been understood previously.

ML

[Digger]

I always saw the issue as cultural usage of an area of land. Therefore all cultural activity is relevant from today and back through time. I am also concerned with the arbitrary importance and value placed on more recent periods that get machined away to find the 'Good Stuff'.

[Paul Belford]

Gumbo - you and others might be interested in the Change and Creation 'Manifesto' (a pdf) produced by English Heritage last year (in conjunction with the University of Bristol and Atkins). Or visit the Change and Creation website if you can't download the pdf.

I have some issues with what is said in the 'Manifesto', but the production of this document is a major step forward (and interestingly represents 'blue skies' thinking by a consortium of public, academic and private-sector bodies).

[deepdigger]

I'm sure there is a lot of mileage in digging more contemporary sites, even though you would like to believe that the issues of the past have been learned and that written records of the contemporary sites already tell us most, if not all we might need to ask!

deep

[Sparky]

If there's a career and money in it, do it.

[i_love_rocks]

Rathje's work on 'Garbage Archaeology' in the US demonstrated perfectly in how far written records in modern times and actual activities of people do not always correspond. Isn't the excavation and investigation of mass graves in former Jugoslavia and Iraq also a type of modern 'archaeology' (at least forensic archaeologists were involved)? Here, also the 'official' written records do not correspond to the sad historic facts. Where do we draw the line between the excavation of WW1 graves in Belgium, bombed out Dresden or blitzed London, Nazi concentration camps in Poland and mass graves in former Yugoslavia and Iraq?

Archaeology doesn't stop at the Industrial Age or even WW2.
It might not be everyone's dream to dig up archaeology that consists of an all too familiar material repertoire or murder victims, but if it helps us to understand the past and 'us' better (as well as collecting evidence to prosecute former dictators and murderes) then it is sure worth it.

Garbage Project Info:
http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/Symmetry/174

[Paul Belford]

I agree entirely with these remarks. I think archaeology is at its most useful when dealing with situations where the "'official' written records do not correspond to the sad historic facts". Unfortunately, despite deepdigger's optimism, any branch of human society is a long way off recording history in an entirely objective fashion.

Not that archaeology is objective either, of course!

[deepdigger]

True! Cheers Paul!!

deep