Carol McDavid schrieb:
> it strikes me as rather odd when we gripe about archaeological findings
> being called "treasures" in mass media and, at the same time, when WE speak
> with the public, we bang on about how "endangered" and "important" and
> "valuable" archaeological findings are. I don't think we can have it both
> ways, Geoff. They ARE treasures.
>

maybe i'm splitting too many hairs - part of my concern is that these things
tend to get set up on pedestals and presented as though they are great works of
art, not everyday household items - they're taken out of context and you try to
pass them off as something they're not -
        most of the stuff we dig up cannot be said to be masterpiece quality;
what makes them really interesting is the narrative (or whatever you want to
call it) that the objects tell us (when interpreted in context, etc.), but which
is harder to integrate into a museum display...

> As you implied later in your message, the answer lies in archaeologists
> being involved more actively in framing the ways these "treasures" are
> discussed/advertised/etc. This means, in part, publishing FOR the public,
> not just for ourselves, regardless of the sad reality that "public"
> books/articles/web sites etc. aren't particularly valued in tenure
> decisions, hiring decisions, etc. This may be changing (the last AAA and SHA
> had "the public" as the major theme), but we're not there yet.
>

this seems to be a bit farther advanced in england (if i'm not mistaken) -

geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]