Is archaeology important or is it just a middle class interest?
Yes if it gives us an understanding of the past but if in the end it destroys in pursuit of knowledge - no. Something I read on by the chief archaeologist hosting the irish motorway, to vaguely quote cos I can't find it
"We do not use the term destructive archaelogy anymore but "deconstruction", so presumably if people want the stones at Avebury re-erected it becomes constructive archaeology...
 Reply | with quote | Posted by moss
25th October 2005ce
15:21 |
dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 24, 2005, 22:19)- Re: dead and buried? (Littlestone, Oct 24, 2005, 22:45)
- Re: dead and buried? (VenerableBottyBurp, Oct 24, 2005, 23:17)
- Re: dead and buried? (FourWinds, Oct 25, 2005, 09:27)
- Re: dead and buried? (dee, Oct 25, 2005, 14:14)
- Re: dead and buried? (PeterH, Oct 25, 2005, 14:45)
- Re: dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 25, 2005, 15:07)
- Re: dead and buried? (Kammer, Oct 25, 2005, 16:37)
- Re: dead and buried? (FourWinds, Oct 26, 2005, 07:44)
- Re: dead and buried? (Rhiannon, Oct 26, 2005, 09:38)
- Re: dead and buried? (Kammer, Oct 26, 2005, 10:21)
- Re: dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 26, 2005, 11:17)
- Re: dead and buried? (tuesday, Oct 26, 2005, 11:17)
- Re: dead and buried? (Littlestone, Oct 25, 2005, 17:42)
- Re: dead and buried? (VenerableBottyBurp, Oct 26, 2005, 15:43)
- Re: dead and buried? (doktoratomik, Oct 30, 2005, 19:02)
- Re: dead and buried? (nigelswift, Oct 25, 2005, 14:20)
- Re: dead and buried? (smallblueplanet, Oct 25, 2005, 20:01)
- Knackers ... (StoneLifter, Oct 26, 2005, 19:30)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: dead and buried? (PeterH)