I know one of the Mods who looks very like him 
http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stonhenge-visitor-centre/
cheers,
M
http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stonhenge-visitor-centre/
cheers,
M
Reconstruction of the face of Neolithic man from Stonehenge
- Thread starter Toddy
- Start date
Blimey, there would be a country covered in old graves if we did that...Cemeteries would get so big we wouldn't be able to move for them, give 'em 100 years then start again.
Sometimes it's inevitable. Where they lived then, we live now. In some ways the entire planet is a graveyard.
At least archaeologists do it with respect and care; treasure hunters don't give a damn, and grave goods and bones out of original context tell us nothing but the price of gold.
M
At least archaeologists do it with respect and care; treasure hunters don't give a damn, and grave goods and bones out of original context tell us nothing but the price of gold.
M
Many of the barrows (as an example) did not need to be dug up - by anyone. They were clearly understood to be graves, and were not cleared to make way for development - they were violated to suit the whims of the person opening them. Whether the motivation involved is curiosity or money, they do not need to be opened to my way of thinking - I find nothing respectful about it. I really don't see much difference between opening a barrow and pulling the top off a tomb in a church to see what's inside.
If bodies are discovered by accident when building etc. clearly they need to be moved - that's different, but deliberately and consciously opening graves just doesn't sit right with me. Just my view.
I think it's down to more modern techniques and materials compared to even a few years ago the technology has moved forward remarkably. Most likely done using computer precision these days.
"They're removing Grandpa's grave to build a sewer" springs to mind. Although its fun to sing "Oh mate don't desecrate" its more desecration not to research and to let the past lie fallow.
Incidentally one of the facial reconstructions looks like Julian Richards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Ancestors somebody's little joke?
Incidentally one of the facial reconstructions looks like Julian Richards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Ancestors somebody's little joke?
"Presumption in favour of preservation in situ", has been the ethos for quite some time now British Red. PPG16.
Archaeology isn't 'antiquarian'.
Toddy
Archaeology isn't 'antiquarian'.
Toddy
Here you go, loads and loads of links.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=e5GwUtX7FoOrhQebmoDIBw
cheers,
M
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=e5GwUtX7FoOrhQebmoDIBw
cheers,
M
PPG16 appears to relate to planning permission around buildings - it doesn't seem to cover excavations and archaeological digs in general? It also seems fairly woolly to me "preservation in situ" doesn't equate to "leave completely inviolate" which, in my opinion, it should.
Id respect and preservation in situ are so important, why are Time Team and other archaeologists often excavating grave sites in fields? Indeed they seem to go looking for them and, having disturbed one body, go looking for another. I find it deeply disrespectful tbh.
However I allow others may feel differently
I know one of the Mods who looks very like him
http://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stonhenge-visitor-centre/
cheers,
M
Ooh that's very look alike indeed :yikes:
Planning is the only way that most archaeology is funded now. Basically the presumption is in favour of preservation in situ unless the site is to be developed and then the developer must pay for the archaeological overview, and if there is any indication that there is 'archaeology' on the site, then the developer must pay for the excavation and subsequent reporting work.
Bluntly, the UK is amongst the worst countries in the world to fund it's own cultural heritage Money rules and the govt. have passed the buck.
This means that archaeologists are now the bad guys to the building trade. Every single one of us knows of trashed sies, bulldozed graves, destroyed contexts, simply because it costs developers money to do the job properly.
That's the cultural heritage of all of us, not just the fellow wanting to build an extension to his garage, or build a housing estate.
Easier to destroy and lose the heritage and information for ever
On the whole, I don't agree with excavating burials just because we can. I know the advances in archaeological science and interpretation within the last twenty years.....imagine how much we could know had we had these developments before the Antiquarians started opening up every mound, grave, cist and barrow that they could find ?
Time Team is good tv and it kind of redressed the balance, even if it was on a totally unrealistic timescale and they didn't show the final recording, the interpretation, the final excavation reports.....me ? I'd have been screaming at TR to get to hell out of my trench
Excavation is the final process of research, not the beginning. It's a destructive discipline; once excavated it can't be put back together again...that's false archaeology, it's destroyed contexts. That's why bones are not returned to the grave they were taken from, but re-interred in a clearly modern deposition. No subsequent confusion for the future interpretation.
Anyway, we have rather gone off on a tangent.
Anyone recognise the fellow in the original article ?
cheers,
M
Bluntly, the UK is amongst the worst countries in the world to fund it's own cultural heritage
Money rules and the govt. have passed the buck. This means that archaeologists are now the bad guys to the building trade. Every single one of us knows of trashed sies, bulldozed graves, destroyed contexts, simply because it costs developers money to do the job properly.
That's the cultural heritage of all of us, not just the fellow wanting to build an extension to his garage, or build a housing estate.
Easier to destroy and lose the heritage and information for ever
On the whole, I don't agree with excavating burials just because we can. I know the advances in archaeological science and interpretation within the last twenty years.....imagine how much we could know had we had these developments before the Antiquarians started opening up every mound, grave, cist and barrow that they could find ?
Time Team is good tv
and it kind of redressed the balance, even if it was on a totally unrealistic timescale and they didn't show the final recording, the interpretation, the final excavation reports.....me ? I'd have been screaming at TR to get to hell out of my trench Excavation is the final process of research, not the beginning. It's a destructive discipline; once excavated it can't be put back together again...that's false archaeology, it's destroyed contexts. That's why bones are not returned to the grave they were taken from, but re-interred in a clearly modern deposition. No subsequent confusion for the future interpretation.
Anyway, we have rather gone off on a tangent.
Anyone recognise the fellow in the original article ?
cheers,
M
For those who are surprised that Neolithic man looks so modern, note that really not enough time has passed for Neolithic man to look anything other than modern. It is the same species after all.
I wish you'd posted that sixty five minutes ago; I've just spent an hour searching about and reading a little on the subject and your sentence sums it up perfectly......................in five seconds!
So would the battle fields of France come under graves or something else, should these final resting places be left untouched and the bodies of the fallen rest in places unknown to their relatives? Or should the archaeologists move in and repatriate them or give them a "proper" grave where their families can visit.
Hundreds if not thousands of British soldiers and other countries soldiers were killed in battle and are still out there somewhere it is only recently that we have "Brought them home" even those killed in the Falklands were buried near the battlefields and some were exhumed to "Bring them home".
Even RT3rds descendants want to have a say where his final resting place should be, a choice they wouldn't have had if they had left him in a common grave.
Hundreds if not thousands of British soldiers and other countries soldiers were killed in battle and are still out there somewhere it is only recently that we have "Brought them home" even those killed in the Falklands were buried near the battlefields and some were exhumed to "Bring them home".
Even RT3rds descendants want to have a say where his final resting place should be, a choice they wouldn't have had if they had left him in a common grave.
Similar threads
