The Future of Archaeology

[JGolomb]

The Future of Archaeology: 12 Expert Predictions for the Decade Ahead

Details in the full article above. Some thoughts and highlights below...

1: "Science will be the driving force in breakthroughs in archaeology"

I've talked about this with friends and colleagues for a few years now. Many archaeological and historical "break throughs" stem more from what new science can expose from old discoveries, rather than new discoveries themselves. Egyptology is rife with new information brought on by genetics (watch for a new announcements from Hawass on King Tut's genes) and scanning technologies. More solid dating technologies should expose and rewrite numerous theories, and the increased ability to preserve findings should have both short term and longer term payoffs.

 

4: "Embracing new forms of communication will be vital to museums"

My take on this item is that new forms of communication (social networks specifically) could not only bring more attention to archaeology, but could lead to a new world of collaboration among scientists. New modes of communication, however, may also cause an uptick in the obstacles brought on by politics (at both a national and professional level).

[Melvadius]

There are some interesting ideas in this article although within the archaeological community many of the 'predictions' will probably come as no great suprise.

 

It has long been accepted that the common terminology Paleolithic, Neolithic, Iron Age etc mean different periods in different parts of the world e.g. in Europe you can hear references to the Copper Age which is normally simply lumped into the Bronze Age in Britain.

 

My impression is that many of these predictions are really just another step in a continuim of changing ideas or else a plea for support of the particular authors favourite topic (Houdin and the pyramids,r Briers and mummies or even Beckensall and rock art). Developmentsd of technology as you say often but not exclusively revolve around adaptations of existing technology - the problem with any 'new technology' is it has to be calibrated against previous methodologies e.g. the different equipment used for remote sensing magnetometry, ground penetrating radar, resitivity do not produce the same type of results and changing the type of sensor used or the spacing of sensing heads can have massive impacts on what is produced. Archaeologists would often prefer to haev a range of different equipment available for use but it often comes down on how much it costs to hire/ own equipment, how long it takes ot run tests and how easy it is to interprete the results and that is before you consider the costs of some laboratory tests e.g.

[stella]

Having seen some a recent example of a multi-million pound museum refurbishments to allow 'new ways' of presenting 'stale' collections the thought of further 'embracing new forms of communications' fills me with a particular level of dread . I can't help feeling that there is a middle ground which the current emphasis on Art History at the expense of archaeology is currently driving museums further and further away from.

 

 

My problem is with the 'dumbing down' of museums with a few 'carefully' chosen exhibits and basic, simple explanatory text or audio-visual explanations. That's fine as museums have to survive and attract the general public but so often there is very little for those with a more specialist interest or who want in-depth explanations. The only reasonably local museum I know which has managed successfully to get round this problem was at Verulanium (St. Albans). Last time I visited it had the, by now usual, visual setting displays and audio-visual presentations, etc., but, underneath the displays, masses of pullout drawers so if you wanted to study hundreds of different roman keys, fibulae, hairpins, etc., they were readily available. I often feel that many museums are trying to be tourist attractions rather than repositorys and disseminators of in-depth knowledge.