Avebury forum 222 room
Image by Big Al
Avebury

Alexander Keiller's Avebury

close
more_vert
moss 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.

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Jan 22, 2013 09:27:35
Replying to moss

moss wrote:
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.
Hi Moss, totally agree. Amateurs contribute a great deal through their sheer enthusiasm and unchained declarations of what they 'believe' could be going on, mainly from something not considered important today...observation. It is not their fault that they are not privy to the equipment and testing available to the professional boys but their contribution as you say in the actual excavating is beyond question.

H harestonesdown
harestonesdown Jan 25, 2013 00:25:36
Replying to moss

moss wrote:
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.
Can't remember what episode it was but last night watching Time Team on 4od one of the archaeos pointed out that back in the 60's it'd take a whole antler to get a radio carbon date, whereas now you'd only need maybe a thimble full, so i do get where you are coming from and appreciate it. Still wouldn't stop me raising a couple of the already dug BHA stones though.

Wasn't time Team actually it was - Silbury, Heart of the hill.