The Van dig raises for me anew the old question 'does archaeology ever like
to move forward without having a great debate on the wisdom of new ideas or
new projects'. This is one of the strengths of archaeology, to me, it thinks
about its future and how it can acheive its aims and seeks to understand the
difficult questions, who in say 1950 would have imagined that it would ever
consider the archaeology of sexuality for instance?
I know from interviewing the public though, to borrow from kevin wooldridge
'archaeological watchers' (Re: [BRITARCH] The Van Dig Fri, 28 Jul 2006
11:00:02 +0100) they can have a difficult time appreciating that debate
isn't division thats it's healthy, essential, to discuss, put forth
arguments, dissect new ideas and examine them for their potential.
One other thing I've noticed too is that some people do not understand why
two entirely different interpretations can have equal validity. I think that
might be improved upon, explaining to the public how archaeology works.
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!