et sequitur ad nauseum spon

I too was a straight talking Yorkshireman, born where bums count not hats. But then I was transported and neutralised by a sausage roll and a gum tree.

I worked in classical, near-eastern, medieval, historical and maritime archaeology for over 20 years. This debate is very familiar.

Museums are great. They perform educational, cultural and [dare I say] spiritual roles that must not be underestimated. And there’s nothing more exciting than experiencing an artefact first hand.

However, as any field archaeologist will tell you, context is everything. Remove an artefact from its resting place and it is denied much of its meaning and significance. The very process of archaeology is intrusive and destructive, as are most preservation processes. Quite often, preserving an artefact in a museum only postpones deterioration and damage temporarily; it can expose the artefact to a whole new range of risks – loss in the archives, fire, theft, corrosion, ultimate neglect and abandonment. Restoration is in many scholars’ minds indulgent and misguided at best, vandalism at worst.

I suppose what this boils down to is a need for balance, carefully considered action and the application of that most rare of human attributes – common sense.

I can say that my most evocative experiences relating to artefacts have occurred when I have stumbled across them in the bush, on the ocean floor or exploring the ruins of ancient structures. I like to witness the ravages of time.