3rd March 2012, 10:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 3rd March 2012, 10:52 AM by tom wilson.)
Hello DigVentures, thanks for coming online to engage in a bit of debate. I have a couple of questions for you.
First, who are you? I presume you speak for the DigVentures enterprise, but who actually are *you*?
No, I don't think we can. It depends what you mean by 'things', of course (of which, more below), but the polluter pays principle is still in place where adverse impacts to the historic environment are caused by development. Some of the reservations expressed by others in this thread regarding the Big Society agenda are perfectly reasonable, and deserve an answer from you if you expect to win people over. We don't want the Councillor Meltons of this world deciding that archaeology can and should be carried out by volunteers in all cases (i.e. including development impacts). How do you define your project as different to others where volunteers shouldn't be used? ...or do you think that volunteers *should* be used for all sites?
Really? You expected to use this site as free advertising, call yourselves the best archaeologists in the world and not get so much as a sideways glance? OK then, but defensiveness isn't going to help you; what we need is open dialogue. To which end: my main question:
Why are you doing this? Is the site threatened? Otherwise, given its apparent importance surely that other old principle, preservation in situ, would apply. Do you have a justification based on community archaeology, wider research priorities etc. that over-ride pres. in situ.? If so, it would help your PR to make it known.
Please don't assume I'm picking a fight; on the contrary, I am asking you to enter into a constructive debate that will justify your efforts.
Cheers,
Tom
First, who are you? I presume you speak for the DigVentures enterprise, but who actually are *you*?
DigVentures Wrote:We cannot rely on traditional funding models or ways of doing things anymore - can we all at least agree on that?
No, I don't think we can. It depends what you mean by 'things', of course (of which, more below), but the polluter pays principle is still in place where adverse impacts to the historic environment are caused by development. Some of the reservations expressed by others in this thread regarding the Big Society agenda are perfectly reasonable, and deserve an answer from you if you expect to win people over. We don't want the Councillor Meltons of this world deciding that archaeology can and should be carried out by volunteers in all cases (i.e. including development impacts). How do you define your project as different to others where volunteers shouldn't be used? ...or do you think that volunteers *should* be used for all sites?
DigVentures Wrote:Whilst we were expecting to have to do a lot of explaining about this project...I can't help but be surprised and disappointed by the tone on this thread. You all make yourselves sound like a bunch of sour old dogs...
Really? You expected to use this site as free advertising, call yourselves the best archaeologists in the world and not get so much as a sideways glance? OK then, but defensiveness isn't going to help you; what we need is open dialogue. To which end: my main question:
Why are you doing this? Is the site threatened? Otherwise, given its apparent importance surely that other old principle, preservation in situ, would apply. Do you have a justification based on community archaeology, wider research priorities etc. that over-ride pres. in situ.? If so, it would help your PR to make it known.
Please don't assume I'm picking a fight; on the contrary, I am asking you to enter into a constructive debate that will justify your efforts.
Cheers,
Tom