Geographic Areas of Competence

[BAJR Host]

Basic query..

Should an archaeologist have a geographic or temporal area of competence? or is the activity of field data collection universal.. where by applying archaeological methods it does not matter if you dig Assyrian, Mayan or Saxon.. you collect data the same way, it is up to the experts to interpret?

Field Archs deal with "this came from here", "this relates to that" .. a certain amount of field interpretation takes place, but the post ex puts what has been found into the final interpretation?

Thoughts? Can a British Archaeologist work abroad?

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

There have always been arguments about this. I think there are augments for and against temporal and geographic areas of competence.

If you a digging a Roman fort or a megalithic site throughout Europe generally there will be similarities where ever you are. In contrast digging an inter-tidal zone waterlogged settlement will be totally different to digging a site of the same period and type a few hundred metres away.

This kind of argument was used to bash consultants and competitive tendering arguing that local knowledge was vital. To a degree such local knowledge is important but the argument is it legal, worthwhile and practical to implement.

The second part of the argument is the final interpretation is done in post X and thus who needs this temporal & spatial knowledge, the surveyor, the digger, the supervisor, the director the osteo-archaeologist?

Some excavation tasks like surveying are the same where ever you are.

What is important are the correct skills and knowledge appropriate to the grade of the job being done in the place that is being done.

There is also the point how long will it take to gain this knowledge this knowledge.

If we look at the EU then any EU citizen has a right to work in any EU country. To move any from this basic right is going to cause difficulties.

The converse argument applies should foreigners be allowed to work in the UK?

I would in contrast point to the Dutch guidance on standards which is published in English to assist none Dutch archaeologists to work in Holland. Surely we should be discussing what training should be available to help people to work where they want in terms of British regions or countries and on what sort of archaeological site.

I have always thought that this notion of local knowledge being vital has been overplayed in order to try and protect intellectual fiefdoms. What we need is more freedom not more unworkable restrictions.


Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

That's interesting Peter, so what you would say is that could be seen as both anti competitive AND against EU directives - (could even be seen as slightly racist... suggesting that archaeologists carrying out an activity to which they are highly skilled... such as survey ... should stay in their own country)

This could be taken to mean that any activity that did not need an in depth knowledge of a area can only be undertaken by 'local' contractors and staff... no Polish archaeologists for example? Local knowledge is a useful skill, but would not preclude an archaeologist that had the requisite skills to carry out the task.

Using the example of fieldwalking for example.. does local knowledge in any way mean that a field in Scotland is any different from a field in south England? More worrying, would this mean that pipeline or road jobs should only be run, directed and staffed with people from the immediate vicinity..?

hmmmmm

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

There is also about a pipeline job in several countries you would need a team of director one for each period in each country.

How about a multi-period site one team of diggers for the prehistoric, roman and saxon periods?

As for field walking apart from flint recognition on chalk I would say it was exactly the same.

Peter

[Paul Belford]

Interesting. A couple of points from my own perspective...

quote:This kind of argument was used to bash consultants and competitive tendering arguing that local knowledge was vital. To a degree such local knowledge is important but the argument is it legal, worthwhile and practical to implement.

In an absolutely free and fair open market the advantage should actually lie with the local organisation surely? With experience and accumulated knowledge a local organisation should have a feel for the likely results (and already have copies of local historic mapping, for example) and the conditions on site and be able to make a more accurate judgement about timescales, costs and research implications.

Sadly of course we do not have an absolutely free and fair open market and the local organisation is often not even asked to tender at all by big consultancies.

quote:the final interpretation is done in post X

I am not sure if I have taken this out of context. However I would disagree with the statement as presented here. The 'digger' is the first in a long line of people who interpret the evidence - there is no such thing as truly 'objective' archaeology. Lots of work has been done on this. The 'digger' needs to be as well informed as the final report editor on the current debates and case studies that relate to the theory and practice of that particular site type and period.

quote:Should an archaeologist have a geographic or temporal area of competence? or is the activity of field data collection universal.. where by applying archaeological methods it does not matter if you dig Assyrian, Mayan or Saxon.. you collect data the same way, it is up to the experts to interpret?

Every archaeologist is an 'expert'. In the UK at least even the lowliest member of staff has an archaeology degree and/or an equivalent level of hard-won experience and is usually 'expert' in some aspect of the discipline (ie. they know more than the average). To some extent data collection is universal, that is the whole rationale behind 'preservation by record'. However this doesn't always work because the evidence is always subject to some degree of interpretation (your mid-brown is someone else's light brown and so-on). In practice we should all be able to go and do something outside our normal time and space. Indeed I would say we MUST all go and do some completely different archaeology to keep ourselves fresh. But inevitably we all develop an interest or enthusiasm in a particular area - Mayan temples, 19th century blast furnaces or Roman Villas in Gloucestershire.

So the short answer is 'yes' we will inevitably have geographic and temporal competence that is better in some areas than in others, but also 'yes' to bringing expertise to bear from outside the narrow confines of a particular competence. I have had invaluable insights into post-medieval sites from prehistorians, and vice versa. My experience in the UK has been of benefit to sites I have worked on overseas, and vice versa.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks for that Paul.... it is indeed true... in many respects, especially when dealing with complex sub surface or unusual archaeology.. I would hope though that
a) a digger will be able to dig a ditch stratigraphically whether it is in Scotland or Jersey.. and that the idea that a digger should have proven competance in a specific area prior to going on a site, where you don't know what you are going to find anyway is strange... iron age diggers come across a mesolithic site... Aieeee! sack em all and get in mesolithic specialist diggers...

What I would content is that field survey which is non intrunive does not need even that level of competance... you jsut need to be able to recognise a pot or flint when you see it.. and I seriously hope that competant archaeologists can do that... I always found that going abroad and digging say mud brick architecture allowed me to view turf built architecture remains better in the UK... conversely, digging deep strat sites in the UK (York for example) helped me to deal with complicated stratigraphy on Sassanian sites in the UAE.

Archaeology - by my definition - is a universal truth... (or at least an attempt at it) where data collection at the most basic level requires nothing more than the ability to collect the data in such a way that it can be interpreted... otherwise, as you state, the people who should winh the job in middleshire county should be the middleshire archaeology trust... which is quite clearly not happening... it goes to a company, who has the ability to carry out the job (and is often cheaper!)

Hypothetically, if a person was told they should stay within their geographical and temporal area (though for myself, I would say Everywhere and Everytime at least in the case of survey ) they would laugh heartily and say... aye... that'll be right!.





"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

There appears to be concenus. Working in a range of places and on a range of different sites is a good thing.

I take Paul point if you do a lot of work in a particular area you do have an advantage because of accummulated knowledge and resources but you do not have to actually be based there to have either of those things. I think one issue is how difficult is it to obtain that local knowledge or resource? (The critism made by Baker was that us consultants could not be bothered to do such research.)

There is the notion that organisations have a collective knowledge of a particular area. I would suggest it is the people who have that knowledge so if somebody working for X Archaeology has not worked in Xshire before they may not know which county they are in or if they are within or without the city walls.

Lets assume that such local knowledge is essiential and you have to have that local knowledge before being able to work in a particular area how are we to measure that knowledge and thus establish what is the minimum required level? We also have to define local.

Peter

[diggingthedirt]

I'm a British archaeologist working abroad, or at this stage, a Yorkshire lad working in Ireland (appen bejaysus).

Over the years I’ve moved back and forth between Britain and Ireland like a nun on the run. Working as a site assistant there, a site assistant here, a supervisor there, a supervisor here, a project officer there, a director here, building experience of both places whilst inadvertently researching my comprehensive guidebook: Bed and Breakfasts I have known and loved. What has struck me most about working as a commercial archaeologist in both countries are the differences – not just in terms of the archaeological sequence, but the differences in terms of how the archaeology is actually dug. Even the tools can be different; in Britain and Ireland two different types of shovel are used: a long handled ‘Paddy shovel’ and a short handled ‘Brit shovel'.

But there’s a more profound difference apart from the tools. Let’s call it the Anglo-Irish disagreement: in essence, the presumption to ‘total archaeology’ on the one hand and ‘sample archaeology’ on the other. In Ireland all archaeology is treated as potentially unique, requiring 100% excavation and preservation by record. A committed legal framework underwrites all decisions that may potentially impact on the archaeological heritage, and any proposed development must be preceded by full excavation of all sites and features.

It’s clear that in two neighboring localities, many similarities may exist in terms of the actual, physical remains of the past, but the ‘archaeological record’ can be ‘preserved by record’ in quite different ways depending on what side of a modern political border they are found. The idea that archaeology represents a universal truth is seductive, but one step away from saying that the spade doesn't lie (and everyone knows thats because they haven't learnt to talk yet).

Ours is a license based system regulating the market as a closed shop. Its not without issue, in particular the lack of accountability created by separating professional liability from commercial liability. Our publication record is disasterous, but improving. The benefits of the system are that in order to direct an archaeological project and carry the responsibility of that work to final publication, you must qualify a peer reviewed interview, and that will require examination on every aspect of Irish archaeology - something you can't really fake if you've just parachuted in. At any other level, fieldworkers are very welcome, and the benefits of our multi-national teams (where English is sometimes a minority language) can be a challenge, but on the whole beneficial.

I think this is a great thing, but of course, living here in the land of milk and honey I would say that wouldn't I?

Peter's point about quantifying the value of local knowledge in order to judge geographical competence is an interesting one. These things are deeply embedded in our taken-for-granteds. It's like learning another language to understand the limitations of your own.

Good forum this, I'm sure to be back! All the best.

Brendon

[drpeterwardle]

Interesting analogy.

I would argue that despite the difference in technique and tools (in Yorkshire of course you have navvies pick axea and miners pickaxes)the archaeology is similar and Irish archaeologist and British should be able to work in each others countries. It is a right under EU law. A norman castle is the same in England as is in Ireland or Viking urban deposits.

The licence procedure looks straight forward enough and not very onerous the issue is it neccessary. Why should there be any impediment to anybody working where they choose? I would argue that it is not a matter for the state to veto who a private sector company employs.

Equally when the Irish reviewed their system of archaeological protection about 10 years ago they ran a pan European tender competition. All the short listed firms were British (and knowledge of Irish arfchaeology was restricted to have you worked in Ireland).

Peter

[1man1desk]

As it happens, some years ago I was interviewed to qualify for Irish licenses and passed (although I had never worked in Ireland, and my knowledge of Irish archaeology was based solely on reading). My career then took a slighly different path, so I never actually took up an Irish license. However, my company does a fair bit of work in Ireland, and I have archaeological colleagues who are closely involved in that work, so I have a degree of familiarity with how it works there.

The Irish system certainly has some strengths that the UK system lacks, but it also has important weaknesses that I think would surprise many UK archaeologists. The key thing in relation to this thread, though, is that archaeologists at all levels seem to be able to move between the two countries without significant difficulty.

This contrasts with the approach taken by some advocates of the 'geographic areas of competence' approach in the UK. There are those who would like to see work given only to organisations based in the same county or city. That seems silly to me. Most of the relevant archaeological techniques etc are universally applicable.

However, what may be more relevant is the type of terrain an individual has experience of working in. Someone who had spent a career on plough-truncated rural sites might struggle with deeply stratified urban archaeology, and vice-versa. Upland archaeology can be quite different from lowland archaeology, which can be very different from wetland archaeology. These differences can change the techniques you apply, and may affect your ability to recognise archaeological features or excavate them appropriately.

So, I would be inclined to look not at organisations but at individuals, and consider before appointing someone to a responsible site-based post whether they appear to have a suitable level of experience on similar terrain.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished