nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 15:13
|
"A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity...."
Maybe because the answer is so obvious? Archaeological remains are the physical manifestation of past culture. Who could doubt that past culture is of value to humanity?
The value to humanity of Stonehenge in World Heritage Convention terms is immense, as high as you can get. The current argument is whether that applies to the Landscape too. EH et al are effectively saying it doesn't.
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 15:54
|
God yes George.
It came up in one or two discussions in a well known society on facebook: The posts asking the question get deleted or the threads get closed. Where I've found archaeo sites that try to address value, there's no wish to engage with justifying why value is assigned (and sometimes people get very annoyed that the question is being asked). Even the Portal, on the few threads that it's been brought up on, doesn't get a huge response. Interesting thread that one because it happened over a number of years and we managed to predict what would happen to the discipline (how it would get hit).
I think that people assume that you're a troll if you ask for justification of 'importance'. Until this point, I don't think that anyone has had to think about it. I'm not convinced that anyone is now.
All the best
Jon
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:05
|
"There are many types of value but not all are quantifiable "
Anything that has value can be quantified using the definitions and methods described in documents such as Stern. (Stern is very good at doing this and explaining how it is done).
Inter-generational equality is the main part of the archaeological argument (preservation for future generations). Stern's methods are ideal for this.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:10
|
Jon, you implied that there were plenty of examples but didn't provide any .
Archaeologists or other interested parties may sigh when asked "why archaeological remains have value to humanity. " , but I can't see how they would be reluctant to respond .
|
tiompan
|
Edited Feb 21, 2017, 16:15
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:13
|
Who is Stern ?
How does she manage to quantify all the most important values to humans .
Nobody has ever managed to do so and never will .
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Feb 21, 2017, 16:20
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:18
|
|
jonmor wrote: Until this point, I don't think that anyone has had to think about it. I'm not convinced that anyone is now.
On the contrary, it has been thought about extensively for many years and I think you do a lot of people a disservice if you think otherwise. I suggest you read some conservation documents - the Burra Charter and the UNESCO Convention for a start, and then English Heritage's guidance on the setting of heritage assets and Historic England's Historic Environment Note 2 and the recent draft for discussion, Note 3.
It's impossible to make conservation choices without employing mechanisms for assessing significance and that's what happens every day.
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:48
|
|
http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:53
|
|
Let's hope you are right George.
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 16:54
|
|
OK Nigel. I have read a few of these. Let's hope you are right and that the issue isn't worth worrying about.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 21, 2017, 17:06
|
|
jonmor wrote: OK Nigel. I have read a few of these. Let's hope you are right and that the issue isn't worth worrying about.
I didn't say that. I simply pointed out loads of people had thought about the issue that you reckoned no-one had addressed. Why misrepresent what I said?
|
