On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:05:15 +0100, Charlie Stokes
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> You should bother because the process of your 'work'
>> is forever
>> destroying a local archaeological setting which can
>> never be returned
>> to the community.
>Is this not what preservation by record is designed to
>Considering this, it seems only
>> reasonable to
>> include the interested public in the process toward
>> a fair way to
>> compensate them for their loss. I realize another
>> way is to offer the
>> report, this is true, but most professionally
>> prepared archaeological
>> reports are in surveyor-archaeologese and can be
>> difficult for laymen
>> to digest.
>Well, yes, but if you are that interested, you'd make
>the effort. If, for example, I wanted to find out
>about some disease I was suffering from, I wouldn't
>expect everything to be in a form that I could easily
>understand, because I'm not a doctor - half of it
>would be written by doctors for doctors.
But so often the problem with developer 'pushed' (and funded) archaeology
seems to be that it is only done to obey the regulations and often takes no
account at all of the local community (there are exceptions) - who cannot
read the reports within a reasonable time after the excavation because they
are so long in appearing, and/or are just submitted to the HER without any
publicity (and DO the mildly interested public KNOW that they can turn-up at
the HER and consult the reports anyway?).
Perhaps a way round this would be to insist that all local development
archaeology MUST be reported in the local library and a copy of the report
lodged there (as well as at the HER) within a reasonable time of the finish
of the excavation.
And yes I do understand that this would cost - but so what, developers
always make money on their developments........