15th January 2008, 12:09 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by achingknees
The young (sic) detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!
Actually that was a rather ignorant point, as he was comparing Vikings with the likely creators of a ring ditch. Vikings did use foundations, and they dug plenty of holes for other purposes too.
All this talk of whether the [u]evaluation</u> trenches were in the right place was shamelessly artificial. If Time Team wanted to demonstrate why the trenches were placed where they were, they could have given us that information from the Method Statement, rather than having the detectorist stand in the field and say 'I'd just dig that way until I ran out of money'. Would anyone here support that methodology? I think not.
The points about class etc. are well made, but it seems a lot of the editorial swing was based on how much access individuals gave to the camera crews. There was enough material there to do a brutal hatchet job on the detectorists, but since they were happy to talk about any subject with Our Tony, they got very sensitively portrayed. The archaeologist clearly had things he couldn't or wouldn't discuss in public (probably for professional reasons), and was portrayed as remote and arrogant for it.
Telly eh? Load of rubbish.
Edit:
One thing this really highlights for me is the way that a Time Team trench (or one on a research dig) has been wrongly conflated with an evaluation trench. Yes, we put trenches where there doesn't appear to be any archaeolgy. No, we do not go straight for the goodies.