The Herit Age

[diggingthedirt]

First came the Stone Age, then the Bronze Age, followed quick sharp by the Iron Age. Then there was a good while when nothing really happened. Until, that is, we invented archaeology, and so began the Herit Age.

Whilst all societies have a past (a sense of their place in a continuous narrative of time) not all societies have archaeology (a sense of their place externalised in a narrative sequence of scientifically organised objects).

The careful, controlled excavation of those objects – wrestled back from the depths of decay – is a specialist business, but one whose fruits can be enjoyed by the many. This is the hallmark of the Herit Age. Enjoyed by the many: practiced by the few. It both belongs to, and is paid for, by everyone.

Until now.

Global economic changes have flung the doors open on an ideology that threatens to take us into a dark age. Lets call it the Heret-ic Age. Wilful ignorance masquerading as intellectual curiosity. Under the guise of getting our economy back on track, a utilitarian principle has taken hold of our elected representatives and passed into public discourse (relatively) unchallenged.

To the Heret-ics, the moral worth of archaeology is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility – which in this case can be taken as reducing the budget deficit and returning the economy to health. Given that archaeology is a cost to business and a drain on public funds, its value, the heret-ics conclude, must be zero.

Take this comment, left on the ‘How the West was Won’ article on diggingthedirt by a fine proponent of the genre:[INDENT]“Interesting article – Sort of.

I would like to know why anyone thinks archaeology is of any “useful” value.

What does an archeologist do that makes one bit of difference to the average guy on the street making a daily living?

I question where does any finding resulting from an archeologist work make a difference any anything in today’s working world?

Can anyone produce documentation or papers where one can find an actual “Return on Investment” on an archeological site?

Since it appears that no one even reads “written” history current or otherwise) to apply lessons learned in order not to repeat mistakes why would anyone think that archeological history is of value? Since most archeological work is “educational guess work” any way!

Just asking”

[/INDENT]Challenge to the forum: in 100 words or less, destroy this viewpoint.

Or learn to live with it.

[Misty]

Since the commentator deals only in practicalities and would be immune to the "what's the point of music, philosophy, art etc." point-of-view then I would direct him to an article on the BBC News website for Wiltshire with the heading "Stonehenge made ?30 million from tourism in 5 years". He may argue that this is tourism, but the tourism would not exist without the archaeology.


P.S. Does this mean we are in a Herit-Ice-Age?

[diggingthedirt]

Nice go Misty.

That's a good revenue from a few bits of old stone no body understands. With a ?6m annual turnover, minus the dilapidated state of Stonehenge's assets, I'd value Stonehenge's market capitalisation around about ?15-20m, give or take few quid.

Or... we don't have to accept the terms of the debate as they are served up to us. Aren't there any better arguments out there for archaeology other than providing a scenic background for international coach trips?

[P Prentice]

tish and pish - your poster’s contingent valuation critique ‘imagines’ a market whose defining economic condition is not to have a market. Van Gogh is valued because of the pain and intensity of his colours and images, not because he made sunflowers and wooden chairs popular! our beloved archaeology’s value is manifest everytime somebody gazes at our exposures.

[RedEarth]

Here's a response to your commentator, perhaps not very constructive, but to the point and well under 100 words:

'Why don't you f**k off you ignorant c**t?'

Or you could just not dignify it with a response.

[Wax]

There are some world views it is impossible to argue against as those who hold them cannot or will not see beyond their own restricted reality

Personally I believe anyone who argues that things have to have a monetary value need or to be "useful" is missing the point of being alive. if that were the only thing that drives human society where would we be.

We measure a civilisation by it's cultural achievements as much as if not more than by it's economic policies.

[Jack]

Posted a mini-rant........tried to keep it short but there is so much to say!

[Sith]

Can we ask him what he does that is so indispensible to humanity (although he appears from his avatar to be a slightly podgy underwater knife-fighting instructor)?

[diggingthedirt]

@P Prentice the art analogy is a difficult tack in relation to this debate. Some of our most ?valued? modern artists ? from Andy Warhol to Damian Hirst ? have made consumerism the subject and object of their art, in which the sale (and cash value) is also

[Marcus Brody]

Serious point though. Obviously we have the moral high ground when it comes to justifying our existence to bankers or traffic wardens, but is there a hierarchy of honourable jobs, and if so where do we factor?

Tricky one, this. There are some jobs such as nursing, teaching or farming that can clearly be considered to occupy the moral high ground, in that they're both socially useful and poorly paid. Similarly doctors, though it's less clear-cut as they can earn huge amounts, meaning that there are probably at least some practitioners who entered the profession on the basis that it'd provide them with a good living. There are other jobs such as plumbers and refuse collectors, without whom society couldn't function - I know it's a crude comparison, but if all the archaeologists in the country went on strike, it's doubtful the public would notice, but if all the binmen (bin persons?) stopped work, we'd be drowning in rubbish in a week.

But on that basis, there are probably very few jobs that could be considered essential - advertising, media, marketing, law, politics, banking, all are areas that pay considerably more than archaeology, all could be considered to be of dubious social value. The fact is that society as a whole has decided that it quite likes the idea that its archaeology and heritage is protected, and has enacted legislation through its elected representatives to ensure that this happens. The fact that an individual member of the public doesn't agree with this is ultimately neither here nor there - I'm sure we could all cite examples of areas of public spending that we don't agree with (nuclear weapons, foreign wars etc), but in a democracy, it's the view of the majority that's important. The danger would be if your correspondent's viewpoint came to be that of the majority, which is why it's important that archaeologists continue to engage with the public and tell them what we've found.