rich
|
Saw...I agree with your last thoughts there. But one thing I'm concerned about is the fact that the battlefields are being looted for artifacts with the items sold for big bucks. And those buying most likely don't care how the item was found. All they perceive is how "valuable" an item they're getting if it comes from a AZW battlefield. I hate to say it but if this kind of activity goes on the archaeological stories that conceivably can still be on the battlefield will be pillaged and there'll be nothing left to study. I'm not down there and I wonder really deep down what the philosphy is protecting all the battlefields.
|
||||||||||||
_________________ Rich |
peterw
|
Putting aside the legality of metal detecting on a battlefield, anyone who buys a Rorke's Drift or Isandlwana artifact that they didn't see come out of the ground with their own eyes needs their head examining.
Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Rich
Only just seen your post of 24 Feb. Well, I would always start from a sceptical position and bear in mind at all times the facts. It seems to me one must also be ready for the most fanciful claims to be made on the flimsiest of evidence, which is what I mean by interpretation. We've seen this sort of thing already on Isandlwana. If we start on a non-negotiable understanding that no cairns can be disturbed as part of the project, as they purport to contain - or mark the spot of - human remains, notwithstanding that this can nowadays only be the most approximate indication (if that), as a result of the several major reburials and movement of remains. They are disturbed from time to time by soil erosion, of course, and the necessary repairs can't be avoided. My second rule would be the strict banning of any TV coverage of the project, and on no account should a proposed TV programme be linked to the investigations. That way lies the inevitable dumbing down and so called "good TV" standards that are all too prevalent. Only professionals (now there's a term!) to be involved and a report or academic paper to be produced afterwards. If any organisation or publication wants to comment on the report, fine. If the TV companies don't find anything sufficiently sensational in the report, or see nothing they can take out of context to make a story from, no doubt they'll show little or no interest, which would benefit all concerned. Rule one reflects civilised behaviour and rule two is aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of interpretation is not hijacked by the stubborn ignorance of TV companies and their commentators. (A recent TV programme on Stonehenge excavations, Rich, had me laughing and crying simultaneously, so idiotic did they appear to presume their audience. Supposition built on speculation, guesswork and remote possibilities, but repeated and built upon sufficiently regularly that they persuade the audience (so they think) that they have raised probabilities, facts even, and presented a great story of discovery. Pah! And they call these documentaries). So - only two rule so far. Now - objectives. What are we looking for? And what important questions do we hope they will answer? Peter |
||||||||||||
|
rich
|
Peter E..
Thanks for your overview. I always knew you were a reasonable man! I, to, don't go for the willy-nilly attack on scrub and brush withou a firm understanding of what is trying to be achieved and learned. Definitely an important attitude to have. Re: the tv business. uh oh. Something tells me once bitten, twice shy? On the Stonehenge fiasco you note, do you know who produced it and was that program distributed to other countries. Was it done by Fred Flintstone & Co?? (not sure if you guys in the UK will get the association but it's supposed to come over as a joke!) Generally, was the program say dumped as dubious?? Perhaps they underwrote the digging? If so, I certainly could see where problems might arise there. TV is show biz as we know and they like to rattle the cages to drum up interest in the production. |
||||||||||||
_________________ Rich |
Mel
|
Saw.... not too sure if a metal detector could confirm if a pile of rocks was a cairn or not without some sort of dig as a follow up?
I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to carry out a metal detector sweep into the Qwabe Valley in order to establish just how far Durnford advanced? |
||||||||||||
_________________ Mel |
Sawubona
|
Mel,
A scrap of brass the size of a buckle or even a button would register through a good foot or more's worth of rubble stone, without disturbing anything. Further, any good metal detector has the capability of "discriminating" among brass, lead, and iron (steel versus iron can be a little dicey with my machine, but it's not a high end piece of equipment by any means). I'd feel confident in labeling a pile stones a burial cairn if the detector indicated that several different metallic artifacts were contained within it. |
||||||||||||
|
Isandlwana Archaeology |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.