29th January 2009, 05:14 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
One I can think of is Crammond Roman Baths.. anywhere else in the world it would be a tourist site.. excavated partially in the 70s and 80s... still waiting.. in a pretty bad shape.
Archaeology is often most in danger once it has been excavated .. and no clear thought of what happens next is put together.
If this one passed under the radar, we might ask - what are the circumstances in which impact/preservation/mitigation situations become highly controvesial for the public? Is the 'danger' really only a question of perception. If you like the idea of a development (because it takes 30 minutes off your commute) the heritage impact will be percieved to be much less important than if you stand vehemently opposed to it. If so then this is a value judgement rather than a question of archaeological significance, and brings us back to the earlier question of dumping the pretence to 'preservation in situ/by record'.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford
On the whole, yes.
But this will require us to stop thinking solely in terms of 'mitigation' and to think much more about 'research' and 'dissemination'. It also needs a pretty comprehensive philosphical and practical review of sampling, collection, retention and archiving strategies, policies and practices.
Doesn't a strategy of preservation in situ/record assert an intrinsic value for heritage independent of the fluctuating concerns of politics and economics? If this is a holding line, in the current climate do we really want to give this up?