>> you are excavating a Roman temple and someone happens by, walking their
>> dog, and asks what the site is, then it would be better to say "a 19th
>> century slaughter house", or something equally as unappealling. If they see
>> just a trench and don't know its an archaeological site then you are
>> "laying pipe".
>I am rather concerned at the line that seems to have been taken by a number
>of contributers to this thread, that the truth about the archaeological
>should be falsified for security's sake. Earlier the falsification of maps
>and the suppression of location in publication seemed to be being
>do find myself wondering whose archaeological heritage we are talking about.
>If, as archaeologists, we do not inform the public of our findings, are we so
>different from the detectorists who remove artefacts from their contexts and
>keep them in private collections?
Keeping good security while stratigraphy is exposed, is not keeping
anything from the public. The public can be informed after the fact. When
we give grid references for the Celtic Coin Index Online we abbreviate them
such as: "SU 41-- 57--". The exact grid reference can be made available
upon request to the Celtic Coin Index at Oxford, but a decision will be
made if such a request is legitimate, before that information is handed
over. This gives everyone at least a fairly close location that is suitable
for distribution patterns, but it does not put a site in jeopardy. I think
that we came up with a decent solution that serves the greatest good.
Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
Database-Web...Graphics...Custom Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
Building the Celtic Coin Index on the Web: