19th February 2006, 01:48 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
A handful of letters from members of the public appeared in a local paper recently.Redevelopment in a large city has revealed archaeology of some sexiness and the authors of the letters are asking why the remains could not be incorporated in the new build? An extremely valid question.Just why is it that the tenet "preservation in situ" is predominantly ignored in commercial archaeology? Why do curators feel that they have the right to utterly remove archaeology in advance of development? Why is`nt anyone out there asking developers to incorporate archaeology within the plans for new builds? Glass floors for example don`t add significant cost and can indeed be cheaper than blocks.The principle here is a sound one...."preservation in situ" is the thrust of PPG15/16.In commercial archaeology, the tenet is largely ignored in favour of complete removal.Why do we as a profession assume that we have the right to completely eradicate town/city archaeology? As issues such as tourism/education/citizenship/value of heritage is banded about in many a conference-commercial archaeology seems to opt out of any real local/social conscience and continues to pander to the needs of developers and clients.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
This is covered by ethical practices teaching on Uni courses. There are books out there which cover the subject. This is why I can't understand why all archaeologists, curators etc. aren't crying out to preserve in situ more. Does the idea of digging it all up mean more to some than letting the general public know about it and preserving it for future generations to see. This is how it sometimes appears to people outside the profession.
The importance of archaeology and heritage can only be made known by those actually involved in the work. I know a lot of you feel, and care, the same way as me about it but, without your input in a big way, the general public largely remain in ignorance of what is happening. It is your profession that has most control over what developers are allowed to get away with and therefore your professions' responsibility to see that they do what is required.
I know you have organisations working in the background doing this work, but with more knowledge given to the non-archaeological/heritage public there would be a louder voice asking questions and demanding answers.
E
(rant finished for now)