25th February 2006, 06:18 PM
I don't think he meant to criticise the work of commercial archaeologists or archaeology as such, and neither did I, I took his point to be the problem of assimilating and synthesising the vast amount of data produced since PPG16, which if no-one ever reads is essentially pointless. He set out to see if it is accessible, and seems to have concluded that it is.
My concern was that it is one thing for a grant funded leading academic and his colleague to spend four years trawling round the units, ferreting out info and chatting to people, but the average researcher still has no way of knowing what and where the data is, let alone getting access to it. Of course I hope that my fears are groundless, and I recognise that Bradders was intending to produce a major new synthesis of British prehistory, a rare (and welcome) event.
I'm certainly not having a go at anyone and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. It's just the old prob of dissemination and access that I'm asking about.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
My concern was that it is one thing for a grant funded leading academic and his colleague to spend four years trawling round the units, ferreting out info and chatting to people, but the average researcher still has no way of knowing what and where the data is, let alone getting access to it. Of course I hope that my fears are groundless, and I recognise that Bradders was intending to produce a major new synthesis of British prehistory, a rare (and welcome) event.
I'm certainly not having a go at anyone and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. It's just the old prob of dissemination and access that I'm asking about.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.