although the 3 day format is very limiting, I wonder if time team can be
given credit with advancing what might be called 'investigative
I have been struck by the methodological way the Stonehenge Riverside
project went about their work. They had some clear questions that sought
answers with an understanding that resources and permissions for
excavation would be severely limited. it was very focussed and very
A bit like an extended time team?
I know this is the conjecture/refutation (hypothetical/deductive) model
but did the Time team help show what can be achieved with limited resources
deployed intelligently? (I'm not saying the Riverside project was inspired
by Time team btw)
On 23 October 2012 13:50, Cerridwen Connelly <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As an archaeological print journalist, I was a fan until about a year ago
> when the same old same old just got too boring. Mick was right to quit.
> Shame they didn't axe Tony and replace him with Neil Oliver. Now that would
> be worth watching! Neil's BBC documentaries are fascinating and have
> "tempo" in the presentation and editing.
> Another negative about Time Team was that you just cannot do justice to a
> site in three days. I recall an argument I had with a man from the
> Winchester Museum about this, explaining to him that it wasn't dumbed down
> deliberately; there just wasn't the budget to add more days to the show.
> I used to love it.
>> But it became a bit like Coitus interruptus ... just as they got to the
>> interesting bit they would withdraw and go elsewhere.
>> And likewise ... nothing seemed to come as a result ... nothing changed
>> through all these series (except their grey hair).
Director: The Old Operating Theatre Museum
And Did Those Feet/Cultural Heritage Resources
Web site http://www.chr.org.uk