Thanks for all your replies so far.
The responses so far are extremely interesting. I obviously have my own
views (or I wouldn't be looking at the WW2 material in the first place), but
my initial message was posted in the hope of starting some debate about the
issue.
Once I have time to go through the replies (it's Monday morning again and my
Radar and Coastal Battery sites are beckoning) I will respond accordingly
via the list (individual or collective as necessary) .
Bye for now
Best wishes
Mike
Mike Anderton AIFA
Project Officer (military)
Aerial Survey
English Heritage
NMRC
Kemble Drive
SWINDON SN2 2GZ
01793 414855 (direct)
01793 414859 (fax)
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Fahri D. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 November 1999 22:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: When do sites/objects become 'the past'?
Dear Mike,
I think your question is very important to understand or to explain
Archaeology ( big capital A) in today's postmodernist social scientific
situation. We as archaeologists should reconsider time in archaeology. Your
question can give a new way for archaeology.
Fahri D.
:-)
>From: "Anderton, Mike" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>CC: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: When do sites/objects become 'the past'?
>Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:28:42 -0000
>
>Dear list(s)
>
>In answer to the plea for more 'archaeologically' related debate on
>Britarch
>(as opposed to genderised semantics), I would like to pose the following
>question - When do sites or artefacts become 'the past' and, thus,
>archaeologically significant?
>
>Some quarters normally apply the 'fifty year rule' as a way of getting
>round
>this pretty contentious subject. However, as I know from my current project
>examining WW2 sites fifty years may not be enough for some people. I am
>often asked 'Well, is it really archaeology?. Wouldn't the money be better
>spent elsewhere?'.
>
>This is partly a matter of personal curiosity as I am , obviously, slightly
>influenced by my current job, but it would be useful to gain an impression
>of other peoples views.
>
>And before anyone thinks that I have not read Samuels and Lowenthal, I
>have.
>What I am after is a grass roots feeling about this material.
>
>Look forward to your views (some of which may [or may not] form part of my
>final report on this project next year).
>
>Best wishes
>
>Mike
>
>
>Mike Anderton AIFA
>Project Officer (military)
>Aerial Survey
>English Heritage
>NMRC
>Kemble Drive
>SWINDON SN2 2GZ
>
>01793 414855 (direct)
>
>01793 414859 (fax)
>
>[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|