You could say that about any money spent on archaeology/historic buildings/heritage etc. The arts will always lose the argument if they are put in an either/or contest with social welfare/health/education. In my view we need both.

A famous archaeologist whose name I just cannot remember once wrote that "archaeology is of no importance. It is a hobby and I am fortunate indeed to be paid for mine". Well there is a theme for discussion: Is archaeology important or is it just a middle class interest?

aw come on! that's a really bad reason. for a start it assumes the money would have to come from the public purse rather than from some rich dude patron type - like it used to - but even if it was public money , if you extrapolated that argument, as peter says, you wouldn't have any arts funding at all...and what an impoverished society we would live in.

isn't that what the daily mail always do? - calculate the number of nurses you could theoretically employ for the price of one (non) wobbly bridge.....(whilst crying for taxes to be reduced)

but i was simple wondering what the latest position on this issue is - it seems such a remarkable and magical thing that they found these things - I didn't even realise!

i mean you wouldn't argue that the mary rose should stay sunk because its sinking was part of its history would you?

> I have a very good reason. That money (and it would be a lot
> of money) would be better spent housing a lot of kids who are
> living rough on the streets of the towns of our so called civilised
> world.

That's beautiful man! Brought a tear to my eye.

However, public money gets pissed away on many less worthy stuff than prehistoric site restoration. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the cabinet discuss whether or not they should spend their sudden windfall on:

a) Restoring Avebury
b) Helping little orphan children
c) Waging war on another country to get their oil

Mmmm. Which one would they choose?

:-)#

K x

>I have a very good reason. That money (and it would be a lot of money) would be better spent housing a lot of kids who are living rough on the streets of the towns of our so called civilised world.<

I'll get onto that right away FW. Don't have too many connections in the world of archaeology but a word here and there should plug the flow of finances to the most costly archaeological projects and those finances can then be revamped into more noble causes. Might have more clout in the world of conservation though and I'll make sure that the BM, V&A and other museum conservation departments are closed down by the end of the year, thereby freeing up money for at least fifty big apartment blocks for homeless kids in various cities across the world. Also got a good friend in theatre-land who I think might be able to close down most of the nation's movie and playhouses - including those two abominations on the South Bank (Tate Britain and The Globe) and that dastardly Millennium Bridge leading to them. In fact, give me a year max' and I'll make sure everything offering any kind of human advancement in the arts and sciences is shut down and their funds re-channelled into more 'worthy' causes.

Our motto shall be <b>Health and Unhappiness for all</b>

Taking your point and that made by Peter elsewhere on this thread, should there then be a ceiling to how much is spent on heritage ?

I mean wasn't there surely an element within govt let alone the people that looked at the bill for Stonehenge and went WHOA- HOLD ON THUR ! We can't have all these people waiting months for hips and heart valves and refuse cancer drugs by postcode and lash out on these stones just for stone lovers and tourists ?

I mean- I know the calculated figure for fixing Silbury and I would rather have that done than dig up stones that we don't know which way up they were let alone which way they were pointing and in what period.

VBB

Well I suggest you get off the internet as quick as you can, cacel your internet subscription, sell your computer and donate the money to charity :op

Nothing's ever that black and white.