Paul Belford
Unregistered
20th January 2006, 04:04 PM
What do people think of the study of late 20th and early 21st century sites? There is an increasing amount of stuff going on, and a lot of noise being made about it at English Heritage
This website at the University of Bristol outlines some of the philosophy behind it. Our
Ironbridge blog has a separate
'Contemporary Archaeology' section highlighting some of our work on developer-funded projects. A
project in Sheffield is mentioned here. Finally, in the states, here is some work on
'Graffiti Archaeology'.
Is it 'proper' archaeology? Is it being built into PPG16 responses where you are? If not, why not? Or indeed should it be?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
21st January 2006, 07:58 PM
There is an article about the archaeology of the Blitz in the latest Current Archaeology, which is relevant to the debate. One of the contributors states that: 'little can be learnt from excavation that is not already known.But that is not the point. The role of Second Worl War archaeology...is to use excavation as a powerful educational tool, a nexus for interdisciplinary scholarship, and a source of social cohesion and a sense of shared community history'.
Hmmm.
G
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
22nd January 2006, 04:40 PM
Hmmm...A friend of mine excavated in Dresden. A shocking discovery was an extensive deposit of fused glass, metal and other melted domestic matter as a result of the bombs delivered courtesy from our own Bomber Harris.
There is no doubt of the temperatures needed to produce the fusion of metals and glass but people lived in those buidings and, as we know, thousands died a horrible death. Such evidence would suggest the heat and ferocity of the fires and the nature of the injuries and deaths.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
22nd January 2006, 09:13 PM
Not too sure about this one.I think we have enough on our plate with the current state of play (Thornborough/ppg 16/ appalling standards/ ineffective Institute/ competative tendering of the nations heritage etc).Please don`t shout at me but, here goes..."real" archaeology is shafted at every turn in this wonderful country of ours as it is and I`m wondering if we should`nt be dealing with that before prioritising the recent past.Isn`t "contemporary archaeology" the realm of the pure social sciences anyway?
Good to hear from you Paul-no offence meant, I`m trying to be provocative.....
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
22nd January 2006, 10:21 PM
but there is the danger that if the archaeology of recent events is regarded as being unworthy of proper investigation and left to the developer's machine buckets, then what will be left of it for the future, when it won't be so recent and fresh in peoples minds? Who is to say that the written records of recent history will survive the test of time any better than more ancient records, and the physical remains may end up being the only evidence that such events occurred
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
22nd January 2006, 10:35 PM
See your point however, there`s enough contemporary archaeology about for us to understand it`s meaning and value.Let alone-nature/extent/date etc.I don`t think its a good idea to present planning authorities (who feel the need to pander to corporate lobbyists and their hidden agendas) and developers (who choose to please their shareholders rather than indulge in a social conscience) with a requirement to invest time and money in investigating an environment we live in and understand well.
Sure-preserve unique examples of our culture-or idiocy (millennium dome/large bicycle wheel/Buck house/House of Lords etc)but graffiti? Naaaaah.More effort required in forcing an ignorant government to take effective measures against the ravages of competitave tendering anytime.....
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
22nd January 2006, 10:50 PM
well, there has always been enough contemporary archaeology around, until people start getting rid of it cause there's too much of it around, its not interesting or important, and we understand it all anyway. Personally, I really don't find industrial and 19th/20th century archaeology interesting, but if we feel we can just get rid of it all without recording at least some of it, then in hundreds of years it will be as rare and ill understood as the stuff we spend our lives excavating. And why should we just preserve the great and the good? sod the House of Lords, I'm more interested in that row of 19th century worker's cottages that the present government seems so keen to get rid of because it will somehow improve slum areas. worked well in the 60s didn't it guys...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
22nd January 2006, 10:59 PM
I meant that the House of Lords should be preserved as an example of our idiocy.Don`t forget-Guido Fawkes was the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions......
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
23rd January 2006, 07:35 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by sniper
I'm more interested in that row of 19th century worker's cottages that the present government seems so keen to get rid of because it will somehow improve slum areas. worked well in the 60s didn't it guys...
Aren't they already doing stuff like this at places like Beamish [?]
E
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
23rd January 2006, 10:56 AM
Thanks for the responses. I myself have some reservations about the value of recording some 'contemporary archaeology' but I think we have to be very careful about making value judgements today on what to keep for tomorrow. I believe in 'total' archaeology, starting at yesterday and going back all the way to the ice age. Every period on every site should be given equal priority.
OK I agree that sometimes we have to compromise, but we should try and stick to that principle as much as possible. Gone are the days when we machine away the post-medieval to get to whatever is underneath.
And why not record graffiti? In other areas of archaeology we often deal with ephemeral remains. We are always trying to tease out stories from perspectives other than that of the 'official' version of events - eg. looking at 19th century workers housing in the same way as the House of Lords (whatever our individual perspective on Catholic emancipation in the 17th century - troll!).
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.
One more question, just out of curiosity...
If the place where your grandfather used to work was being demolished, would you not want to see it recorded archaeologically (up to and including the time he finished working there)? Even if it was sat on top of a monumental henge complex?
