23rd September 2010, 04:09 PM
I was being slightly (well a bit more) cruel ih the sweet track example... (though to my credit I did put up the link so that the full context could be seen) What I am trying to get at, is that 3/4 of it is written off... and 500m of it (1/4) is now managed in a way that is not permenantly sustainable... costs a lot and in the end preserves some soggy wood.... to what end? the rest of it is allowed to decay.... so whats the difference?
I agree wholeheartedly with the helmet being as much use as a concrete lifebelt without the important context. at least ditches can't be brought from other places! The importance is in the location and associated finds.
What I am still trying to argue is that preservation is situ is somewhat of a smokescreen.
However, back to the 'helmet' Its pretty... it draws the crowds of shuffling masses who coo over it, without knowing why... give me the pottery scatter any day... as it places the pretty things into the context they need.
I agree wholeheartedly with the helmet being as much use as a concrete lifebelt without the important context. at least ditches can't be brought from other places! The importance is in the location and associated finds.
What I am still trying to argue is that preservation is situ is somewhat of a smokescreen.
However, back to the 'helmet' Its pretty... it draws the crowds of shuffling masses who coo over it, without knowing why... give me the pottery scatter any day... as it places the pretty things into the context they need.