14th March 2008, 01:10 PM
I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on how an archaeologist should regard monuments. I often go to monuments trowel in hand at night hoping that there will be evidence for potential archaeology and find that they are already trashed and feel cheated that I got suckered in by all the scheduled heritage world monument speak.
My inclination is that there should be designated archaeological monuments which are sites, parts of sites, that archaeologists would like to excavate and that once they have been excavated and recorded that they cease to be an archaeological monument and the land can be retrieved from those who want to stand and stare. In effect they are only being preserved for us archaeologists to dig. I think that we should make this very clear to the public.
My inclination is that there should be designated archaeological monuments which are sites, parts of sites, that archaeologists would like to excavate and that once they have been excavated and recorded that they cease to be an archaeological monument and the land can be retrieved from those who want to stand and stare. In effect they are only being preserved for us archaeologists to dig. I think that we should make this very clear to the public.