my question

[gumbo]

Great thread! However, Curator Kid, surely we get out of Ark B because we have such luminaries as Eggbasket. I was having one of those weeks too Eggy, LOL!!!

Gumbo

[Curator Kid]

42

[tom wilson]

Good thread Searcher.

Let's see now, there's so many yesses that I'm inclined to play devil's advocate.

OK no, archaeology is not essential.
I interpret the question as meaning 'the practice of archaeology', and people got along just fine for a long time without it, relying on their skalds and scribes and old wives tales to negotiate their relationships with their past. Those relationships, however, are unavoidable; a pretty good candidate for something hardwired into our brains. If it was 'having a relationship with the past' that Searcher was referring to, I would call it inevitable, rather than essential.

That said, since a relationship with the past is unavoidable, and since dictating that relationship carries so much power, it becomes important to structure and mediate the re-creation of our collective pasts. I wonder if, years back, people had heated debates about the decline in skalding standards, or heiroglyphic bias caused by universal employment from the Pharoh. Nowadays, we have archaeologists. Some of us are re-structuring (finding stuff and saying what it is). Some of us are mediating (supplying views about importance of different stuff to the public and government). Some of us are pontificating (waiting around until three for a meeting that was supposed to start at nine). My signature looks a little redundant down there today, doesn't it. Hey ho, thanks for reading my waffle.


'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo

Great thread! However, Curator Kid, surely we get out of Ark B because we have such luminaries as Eggbasket. I was having one of those weeks too Eggy, LOL!!!

It is a terrible thing for a philosopher to be understood in his own lifetime! I rather fear that we will find ourselves comfortably ensconced in the B-Ark because of me, and probably also because of Shanks, Tilley and Hodder.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"A stitch in time saves precious bodily fluids."

[stripeykelly]

quote:Originaly by eggbasket

Given that all human endeavour is futile, and that there is no over-arching meaning to life, and no divine being will judge us

Although I agree totally with this statement, again my own view, considering that our actions today will effect the future, as Dr Wardle was pointing out about climate change, therefore actions in the past have created the world we live in today. I would argue then that we have a responsibility to preserve our past and present, whether in physical or record form, for future generations. If we do not then we are denying future generations an identity and an understanding of past cultures, and I cannot imagine that they will be too happy about this, as they will only realise when it is too late - again look at climate change (if we are honest unless we make serious changed to our lifestle in the next couple of years we are all up the proverbial sh** creek).

I know, no one will die or physically suffer if we allow several small (or even large) sites to vanish from record, but it will be to the detriment of society and culture. Once we have lost our heritage there is no way of getting it back, and I don't want to be one of the generation infamous, say 200 years in the future, for a) wrecking the planet, and b) willfully destroying my own and others culture.

Right, I am off to eat my organic veg and pin-up my new exciting chart on herbs from the Guardian!!

the future's bright; the future's trowel shaped

[drpeterwardle]

Iman1desk said

"Dr Pete's answer is correct, so far as it goes. However, it is limited to the study of climate change - and what percentage of archaeological activity goes into that? What does, for instance, the typology of Anglo-Saxon sculpture, or the Defence of Britain Project, tell me about climate change? But, both of them are legitimate archaeological activities."

I would say that strictly there isnot any thing archaeolog - ancient in the study of pill boxes even though PPG16 suggests otherwise.

The study of ancient art however is related to climate change apparrently. It also has it value as dating evidence and mapping migrations etc. The point I was making about climate change was about looking at how humans respond on a macro level to changes in their environment as the lecturer said "civilisation came about due to climate change and it caused them to collapse".

Not simply mapping how climate has changed but looking at cause and affect.

Cant see how a watching brief which finds nothing contributes much though.

Peter Wardle

[Curator Kid]

True, but you only know it's found nothing after you've done it. If it had found something, then it has contributed.

[soappey]

Ooh, this is interesting...
I'm with 1man on this in so far as the question needs clarification and definitions.
Personally though, despite the fact that I see archaeology as an extremely important part of modern life, I do not believe it to be essential and I believe that a large majority of the public would agree. It is not essential in the way that having clean water, having bins emptied, keeping streets clean and dog poo free, having clean hosptitals with doctors and nurses to work in them etc etc are (and even these 'essential' things do not exist in many palces in the world).
However, as Kelly said the knowledge of archaeology is vital to link past present and future. It seems to me that there is a gap between the importance that archaeologists place on archaeology (obviously) and how the public sees it. So somehow we have to bridge this gap so that archaeology is seen to play an important role in modern life.
I am currently researching the importance of archaeology and landscapes in the cognitive development of primary school aged children - so ask me the question again in 5 years time and I may have a different answer!

[sarahlouise]

I though it might be interesting to add in the publics point of view

In 2000 English Heritage undertook a survey and asked a representative 3000 people in England various questions about their view of heritage (which archaeology is obviously a part of)

96% think that the historic environment is important to teach them about the past,
87% then said it plays an important part in cultural life of the country and
76% felt their lives where richer having the opportunity to visit or see it (this included heritage sites, museums and excavation sites).

Not sure if this can translate into essential but its a very high percentage. Just because people do not run around going archaeology is brilliant - unlike maybe football fans - does not means it is not important to how they live.

The fact that archaeology as a practice came into being at all suggests that

quote
"relying on their skalds and scribes and old wives tales to negotiate their relationships with their past"

was not sufficient for people in the recent present. Archaeology came about as a reaction/need expressed by people and what archaeology is concieved to be changes and develops (to those needs) so that if someone said archaeology is not essential lets get rid of it - where would you start? It is not just the act of digging things up. A new area, for example, that is developing now and creating loads of discussion is public/community archaeology which is a whole field that requires exploration and development (and potentially jobs!)

This relates to Searchers question about the wealth of information we already have - a large part of archaeology is interpreting - reinterpreting even if we stopped digging tomo archaeology would not stop as a discipline. Not that I think we should stop(before anyone jumps down my throat!). At the beginning of the 20th century there were people who thought they had all the answers from digging and look how much things have changed since then, there is so much more we can do, many suggested by others here.

Also throughout the past we can see evidence of people using objects to relate to their past and you have open air museums in the Roman times (even if it was just to show off what you owned - its still this connecting with the past) - we are not all that new just maybe more self aware.

I would add though that there are some archaeologists that maybe think they are more essential to the world than they really are!!!!!

Also I agree with lots of other stuff people have said but you could go on forever - personally though I like the Invisible mans answer the best.

[sarahlouise]

eck that was way too long an answer - sorry guys got carried away with tiny tiny quick reply space. Soz again!