Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
So what we seem to be saying .. is the sad.. but true reality.
IF archaeolgoists say NO.. we won't take your tainted money, rather than bringing about the collapse of our capitalist society, the only reaction from the multinational developer... is "fine... don't say we did not offer,... get the machines rolling Big Duncan"
If we don't go in before a dam project or a road project... do we really think it won't go ahead? But by going in are we adding legitimacy? But by not going in we may as well get a comfortable university job [hm]
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
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)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
One of the phrases in the paper that characterises the authors attitude is "corrupt development and profiteering" and the suggested link between the Irish President and an American organisation established during the Reagan era to promote democracy and the free market by nefarious means is illuminating. Yes we can stand with our fingers in our ears shouting la la la, I wont quote for this work because I disagree with the siting of this development or because you invested whatever, wherever and six months later we'd be collecting our unemployment benefit or working in a call centre as development blithely carried on.
I'm not saying that valid points are not raised, or that we should unthinkingly go along with the planner/developer/commercial archaeology status quo but to suggest that commercial archaeology is a suitable stage on which we should fight the march of globalisation seems a little disingenuous.
Happiness depends on ourselves.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
http://digitaldigging.blogspot.com/2008/...s-and.html
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Medication time medication time. 'The presence of the US military shocked many' hahaha! Her take on WAC and what actually happened are poles apart. The womans delusional. There was an archaeologist employed directly by the US military, taking part in a discussion on archaeology in conflict zones. There was also an archaeologist from the MOD. An important, relevant discussion, but not quite tanks on the lawn! I vote Mags Series 2 academic consultant for Bone Kickers. She's an (un)tapped resource.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
'Problems with archaeology on the M3 should surely be investigated but by a people's inquiry (facilitated by academia perhaps) '
I assume she's thinking that this would be her? Or people who agree with her? I'm not sure what a 'people's enquiry' consists of.
I was also interested by her assertion that it's not OK for other archaeologists to review work and make suggestions if they are employed by 'the developer'. But presumably it is if they rabidly object to the development? [xx(]
