|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 20, 2017, 20:48
|
||
|
Oh go on then, here's a few professional archaeos who have published pieces against the proposed tunnel: Dr George Nash https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/the-stonehenge-tunnel-another-viewpoint/ Dr Rachel Pope https://twitter.com/preshitorian Professor Dan Hicks: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/the-a303-is-part-of-the-stonehenge-setting-dont-bury-it-a7543226.html http://theconversation.com/archaeologist-the-a303-is-a-crucial-part-of-stonehenges-setting-71451 Penelope Foreman (less unequivocal, but still "anti-tunnel"): https://suspiciousmounds.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/under-stonehenge/ There are plenty of others who are lending support to the Save Stonehenge campaign (Dr Matt Pope, Dr Kenny Brophy, etc). Most of the ones with links to EH/NT are saying nothing, rather than coming out in support of the scheme.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 07:04
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Most of the ones with links to EH/NT are saying nothing, rather than coming out in support of the scheme. .... and, equally telling, EH, HE, NT, Highways England and the Govt. have issued a series of statements and press releases containing porkies. We've been documenting them. There have been 25 so far. Rather more than can be dismissed as not an agenda to mislead. https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/?s=yowling
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 10:21
|
||
|
Any question about archaeology always seems to ends in combat rather than cooperation. All I asked was who the professional archaeologists are that think it's a big problem (the ones that Julian mentioned in the video). I've only met Julian once Nigel. As it happens, I didn't ask him for his telephone number.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 10:46
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: Any question about archaeology always seems to ends in combat rather than cooperation. I don't agree. Most people here ask zillions of questions without any difficulty. Anyway, your question has been very comprehensively answered below has it not?
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 11:10
|
||
The answers to date do help to assess whether or not experts who are not professional archaeologists could make any effective contribution to the position of the lobby groups Nigel.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 11:32
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: The answers to date do help to assess whether or not experts who are not professional archaeologists could make any effective contribution to the position of the lobby groups Nigel. Thanks for your input Jonmor - I'm no expert on anything but have tried to use this topic as a means to disseminate information and relevant opinions. As I said in a previous post I found Julian Richards's youtube film lucid and accessible - perhaps because he was at the barrow cemetery where the impact of the tunnel portal will be greatest. There is nothing stopping anyone coming here and presenting the alternative argument if they want to. As Nigel said earlier, prominent and well respected archaeologists who work for the EH/NT seem to be keeping quiet. With the exception of the lovely Nick Snashall who, employed as she is by the NT, as archaeologist for Stonehenge and Avebury, seems to have been put in the unenviable position of promoting the short tunnel.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 11:52
|
||
Glad someone else feels she's been put in a position which surely goes against her every instinct.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 13:14
|
||
|
Thanks ttj. Without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of alternative arguments, it seems to me unlikely that a contribution to the consultation would have much impact. Julian emphasises the importance of the site: The site may be important to archaeologists and the WHS is logged as having outstanding universal value by UNESCO. However, this is not quite the same as proving importance. To show importance, one would need to show that the value is high and that the value will be adversely affected by change. In order to do that, one would need to show what the value is (to humanity): UNESCO's structure singles out sites with a high relative value (to humanity), but it does not put a value (valuation) to those sites. A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. Once the potential(s) for value are known, they can usually be defined using quantifiable methods. If value is not defined using a quantifiable method, you will have a lot of difficulty countering the additional capital, user and environmental costs of doing something else. I hope that the above is not too cryptic. I've possible spent too much time looking at methods of assessing environmental value and writing about it for engineering audiences. If the language is a bit obtuse, let me know. Though it may not appear to be so, the above is intended to be helpful.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 14:35
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: Thanks ttj. Without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of alternative arguments, it seems to me unlikely that a contribution to the consultation would have much impact. Julian emphasises the importance of the site: The site may be important to archaeologists and the WHS is logged as having outstanding universal value by UNESCO. However, this is not quite the same as proving importance. To show importance, one would need to show that the value is high and that the value will be adversely affected by change. In order to do that, one would need to show what the value is (to humanity): UNESCO's structure singles out sites with a high relative value (to humanity), but it does not put a value (valuation) to those sites. A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. Once the potential(s) for value are known, they can usually be defined using quantifiable methods. If value is not defined using a quantifiable method, you will have a lot of difficulty countering the additional capital, user and environmental costs of doing something else. I hope that the above is not too cryptic. I've possible spent too much time looking at methods of assessing environmental value and writing about it for engineering audiences. If the language is a bit obtuse, let me know. Though it may not appear to be so, the above is intended to be helpful. Thank you for taking the trouble to write that - I think it deserves an answer but don't expect an academic argument. I am not an archaeologist, nor did I ever wish to be one. So my response has to be purely an emotional one, though I would be far better equipped to make it if we were talking about Avebury. You say to prove the importance of somewhere like the Stonehenge WHS we would need to demonstrate its value to humanity. Well we can certainly demonstrate its value to the National Trust and English Heritage - it must be their biggest earner. Even more so if you take the fleeting view of it away by sticking the traffic underground using the least expensive option. But this is where the emotion comes in - I personally do not like new roads, underground or overground. I was on the side of Swampy all those years ago when stuck himself up a tree to protest against the Newbury by-pass (having been on the Newbury by-pass recently, I can confirm it is hellish). "A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity." That seems to fly in the face of everything this web-site is about. Can we not have a Blakean view of our world, investigating and protecting 'the past' without putting 'value' on it. The past is our compass in many ways; the Neolithic past is our great mystery - so near and yet so far.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 15:00
|
||
|
"A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. " Any examples where archaeologists have been asked that question ,and were reluctant to answer or didn't provide a reasonable answer ? "Once the potential(s) for value are known, they can usually be defined using quantifiable methods." There are many types of value but not all are quantifiable .
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
