Re: Is something missing from this debate? | Forum

M

moss Jan 22, 2013 09:20:17

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

nigelswift wrote:

Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it.

Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it.

In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame.

Good try. So you think you speak for all archaeos Nigel? I bet if most were asked to oversee the re-raising of all the stones they couldn't agree fast enough. Same applies to the EKLB as you brought it into the discussion. 'Most' archaeos never get a shot of making a name for themselves and if the project was offered to them they'd jump at the chance I suspect. It didn't stop them 'destroying the archaeology' when they dug for and exposed the stones in the BH avenue did it because it was not destroyed but thoroughly investigated as the work progressed. How come they didn't feel bad about digging there? But that's just my view.

Hi Sanctuary,
A small point but well worth making is that 'amateurs' have often discovered and contributed to the knowledge of the science of archaeology. Not forgetting that archaeology needs a lot of manpower to excavate sites, (okay forget Time Team and its mechanical diggers); the contribution to our knowledge by small history societies and individuals in voluntary capacities should also be acknowledged.
The presumption that archaeology would be better in the future, is, after all only a desired wish at the moment, presumably soil analysis could be better in the future but read any archaeological report and they are very thorough even today.

T

tjj Jan 22, 2013 09:23:22

Replying to Sanctuary

nigelswift wrote:

Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it.

Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it.

In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame.

Nigel, thank you for your measured post - although we haven't always seen eye to eye I agree with you on this. No one is saying 'never' only 'not now' - leave it for future generations to decide and trust that past mistakes made around Avebury and Silbury will be a reference point for them.

N

nigelswift Jan 22, 2013 09:24:25

Replying to Sanctuary

"Good try"

It's not a try it's my honest opinion, based on my understanding of the things that rule professional archaeologists like the Conventions, EH's guidance and the IfA code. But I'll leave it there thanks.

T

tjj Jan 22, 2013 09:45:17

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

Good try. So you think you speak for all archaeos Nigel? I bet if most were asked to oversee the re-raising of all the stones they couldn't agree fast enough. Same applies to the EKLB as you brought it into the discussion. 'Most' archaeos never get a shot of making a name for themselves and if the project was offered to them they'd jump at the chance I suspect. It didn't stop them 'destroying the archaeology' when they dug for and exposed the stones in the BH avenue did it because it was not destroyed but thoroughly investigated as the work progressed. How come they didn't feel bad about digging there? But that's just my view.

Roy, I know you love Avebury as do others but I don't quite get the urgency to this. All anyone with an opposing view is saying is 'now is not the time' ... for which there are many reasons, most of which Nigel Swift and Rhiannon have detailed in their posts. Added to which of course are the financial constraints of the times we live in.

You said 'Good try' in your reply to NS - the same could be said for you when you started a spurious thread implying the stones were in threat of being stolen if they remained in the ground. No disrespect intended, I think you are a great attribute to this forum but forums are always about the exchange of views otherwise there is little point in them. Am away to 'seize the day' now - have a good one!

B

bladup Jan 22, 2013 11:59:01

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

nigelswift wrote:

Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it.

Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it.

In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame.

Good try. So you think you speak for all archaeos Nigel? I bet if most were asked to oversee the re-raising of all the stones they couldn't agree fast enough. Same applies to the EKLB as you brought it into the discussion. 'Most' archaeos never get a shot of making a name for themselves and if the project was offered to them they'd jump at the chance I suspect. It didn't stop them 'destroying the archaeology' when they dug for and exposed the stones in the BH avenue did it because it was not destroyed but thoroughly investigated as the work progressed. How come they didn't feel bad about digging there? But that's just my view.

I Agree word for word with this, they'd all jump at the chance of making a name for themselves and weaving their names into the fabric of the place.

Alexander Keiller's Avebury