|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 17:26
|
||
My apologies if you think I was trying to misrepresent you Nigel.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 17:38
|
||
|
Thanks for the non-confrontational chat ttj. There's a view in some quarters that the future of the environment is important. If you agree with that view, then a generally agreed methodology for development is what's known as "Sustainable Development" (defined in the simplest terms by Brundtland and so on, but later significantly modified by Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration and so on). With Sustainable Development comes a gradual abandonment of those ways and parts of the past that are detrimental to the continued existence of our society. If you agree with that viewpoint, then it is not unreasonable to ask how much value (or otherwise) this or that has to both us and to future generations. Value can then be compared against the options to see which option (for development) generates the most benefit. A consultation is then used to help identify issues that may not have been considered.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 17:54
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: If you agree with that viewpoint, then it is not unreasonable to ask how much value (or otherwise) this or that has to both us and to future generations. Value can then be compared against the options to see which option (for development) generates the most benefit. That doesn't work with heritage for under it it might not be worth wrecking the setting of Oswestry Hillfort to build 50 houses but it might be more so to build 250, which is clearly not sensible for the fate of the heritage would depend not on its own merits and value but the size of the proposed development. Salop Council might well want to apply such cost benefit analysis but the country is more civilised than that, surely?
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 18:35
|
||
|
Kathryn Samuels once suggested that “value can be located within at least three interconnected practices of the discipline of archaeology: (1) as a technique for assessing the value (‘significance’) of our object of study, material heritage; (2) as an analytic for making interpretations of the past (e.g. for reconstructing past societies); and finally (3) as a way to question our archaeological modes of inquiry, to ask how the first two practices produce particular effects and shape specific histories as (un)authorized. In this last instance value is therefore also a way to question why we study material heritage in the first place. “ Others would have no problem adding to them . “ 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).” I don't see where Nicholas Stern can possibly contribute to quantifying any of the above and there was nothing in the linked document that explains how he could .
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 18:54
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: That doesn't work with heritage.... Some old hands in the industry might perhaps comment that every special interest group says that environmental considerations should not apply to them for some reason or the other. There was a review of this, particularly as it applies to the perceived special leeway given to archaeology, in a review published over a decade ago (I forget the reference now) But you may be right: The consultation will provide an acid test of that idea (especially if no work on the newer methods of determining value are looked at by interested parties).
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 19:06
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: The consultation will provide an acid test of that idea (especially if no work on the newer methods of determining value are looked at by interested parties). Still beats me how there can be a new, unexplored method of determining value of heritage. Yes, you can measure it in tourist dollars but all you end up with is a value measured in tourist dollars which is not a cultured way of valuing culture. If you project a Mickey Mouse lightshow onto the side of Stonehenge you'll increase its value in tourist dollars but will you increase its cultural value? Is there a new, unexplored method of determining the value of Beethoven's Ninth, news of which has not yet reached my village?!
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 19:16
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: If I've understood, the known archaeologists in Julian's camp are Mike PP, who is said to have mentioned it in a talk, and a research group who have issued a very strong report to a WHS Steering Group. There may be other professional archaeologists who have not said anything as yet. thesweetcheat wrote: 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. Just wondering if this had answered the statement that there were no other "known" archaeos who had said anything in the anti-tunnel camp?
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 19:19
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Kathryn Samuels once suggested that “value can be located..... Others would have no problem adding to them . . Samuels' arguments might possibly be used George. If they can, and the arguments she used are not just an internally looking method of assigning value which would have little or no merit in a major projects inquiry, then this sort of argument can be introduced into the consultation. Are you planning to use that sort of argument in the consultation George? tiompan wrote: I don't see where Nicholas Stern can possibly contribute to quantifying any of the above and there was nothing in the linked document that explains how he coul.. No that's right. You have to read through the appendices to the full report to find out the methods. If you're particularly interested, I can email you the relevant sections.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 19:26
|
||
|
Jon , Stern is an economist ,it's the wrong brief , a bit like geomorphologists playing at being archaeologists , but much worse . I doubt that the appendices will provide the answers to the earlier question . “How does she manage to quantify all the most important values to humans . Nobody has ever managed to do so and never will . “
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 21, 2017, 19:29
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Still beats me how there can be a new, unexplored method of determining value of heritage. Some would argue that this is because the value never existed to the extent claimed by the heritage lobby Nigel. I don't agree with this argument. However, the quality of the defense of "heritage value" on projects like Stonehenge will set a precedent for other projects around the country.
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
