11th May 2007, 03:12 PM
As someone mostly working in EIA, the topic I deal with is 'Cultural Heritage', which is in principle even wider than 'Historic Environment'. In practice, though, it usually boils down to a combination of archaeology, built heritage and historic landscape, all tied together with a little bit of potted history.
What it does mean, though, is that I see things from an integrative perspective. There are no hard boundaries between any of these heritage themes (and you can go even wider without finding any hard boundaries). My current EIA-coordinating role involves bringing people with different skills together to achieve a single, integrated objective.
From that perspective, I don't see why archaeologists (traditionally-defined), historians, built-heritage professionals etc. want to draw sharp lines of demarcation. Many of us don't fit comfortably into any individual pigeon-hole, but have skills from more than one area.
Having said all that, as a former prehistorian, I know that everything after 43 AD is modern rubbish.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
What it does mean, though, is that I see things from an integrative perspective. There are no hard boundaries between any of these heritage themes (and you can go even wider without finding any hard boundaries). My current EIA-coordinating role involves bringing people with different skills together to achieve a single, integrated objective.
From that perspective, I don't see why archaeologists (traditionally-defined), historians, built-heritage professionals etc. want to draw sharp lines of demarcation. Many of us don't fit comfortably into any individual pigeon-hole, but have skills from more than one area.
Having said all that, as a former prehistorian, I know that everything after 43 AD is modern rubbish.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished