Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
17th February 2007, 09:42 AM
Spot on 1man
That is why the projects that I am currently pushing forward with a large outreach component have to have a long lead-in period. I would very much like to see direct involvement on site for a number of interested groups of all ages, but this cannot be bolted on to the project at the last minute. At the moment I am discussing the overall phasing of the developments in order to ensure that key areas of the site (key for archaeology) are available for a decent amount of time without other construction activities going in in the vicinity. These schemes are not likely to start until 2008/09, but the concept of public involvement has to be agreed and programmed now if it is going to happen at all. The clients are OK with this as long as it can be demonstrated that it will no lead to delays in the build programme.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th February 2007, 10:33 AM
Keep us up to date on this...
Perhaps Putting thoughts onto the Section of the forum to do with Public Outreach
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
19th February 2007, 12:41 PM
I think that there are strong ethical reasons for public involvement.When we talk about it we generally envisage the practical aspects of "inclusion" in the context of potentially dangerous working conditions.In particular, It seems that in a commercial environment, and on the whole, the public enjoy very little "involvement". It was a while ago on this forum but I remember someone estimating that around 14,000 archaeological interventions are thought to take place in a given year.In the current climate of development it would be reasonable to assume an exponential rise over the next few years too.If we are honest, the tenet of "preserve in situ" does`nt really get a look-in and "preserve by record" results largely in the destruction of the resource. Seems to me that on such a scale, we at least should have the decency to let the public see what they are about to lose! It follows that we should also include the public in decision-making at the planning level in a more transparent and effective way-something the current Government may be moving away from.I don`t think that we can continue to discuss public involvement seriously until we move away from the "how do we let them on to our sites.." mentality.The dangerous sites issue could easily be side-stepped by a range of mitigations from early consultation,project designs to web-cam live feeds.There are already plenty of developers who can appreciate the intrinsic value of social inclusion particularly where there are sensitive environmental factors to take into account.Commercial archaeology can fail to communicate with the public and there are those who would argue that it is none of the publics business anyway.There are oodles of ways that the public could and in my view should, get involved in commercial archaeology.And its not all about marigold gloves and knee-pads either
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
19th February 2007, 05:33 PM
1man1desk - I agree that there is a difference between outreach and involvement but I believe that both can be done (but maybe not in all cases etc..)
I agree with Troll too that that access to site is a limited view of what commercial arch and its relationsip to the public has to offer.
I worked on a programme with a local education officer that would happen long after the dig finished (and had nothng to do with access on site although we did give a few tours etc. while excavation was on). this developed from public interest of the site. This officer has nothing to do with archaeology but she saw the potential BUT she got a job in SCRAN and me being a field arch moved on and so the programme never came to fruition. This leads to another problem - long term work with public instead of love them and leave them. Like Beamo says you need planning and I also feel follow up and to do this you need money (and consistent staff) which is difficult if its not a priority to the client. In addition not all archs want to deal with public or have the skills to do so - nearly all museums now (public or private funded) have education officers (this is a very recent development) and for that matter many commercial sector companies have an education side to their work- is there a case for this in commercial arch but again where would the money come from?
PS - Beamo - what you are doing sounds very cool
I love deadlines I love the whoosing noise they make as they pass you be! (Douglas Adams)
