Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
archaeologyexile Wrote:No.....the vast majority is fulfilling a planning condition and the majority of that has negative results!
The planning condition is the reason, not the process. And even a negative result is a conclusion to systematic archaeological investigation. Or research. Sorry for being a little pedantic, but I'm seeing a false dichotomy here, that you either do 'research' archaeology (considered by some the be 'good' archaeology) or you do commercial archaeology (considered by some to be 'bad' archaeology). To my mind, both are archaeology, both are trying to answer questions, both are feeding into the general body of knowledge, and both at least should be done to the best possible standards.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Tool Wrote:The planning condition is the reason, not the process. And even a negative result is a conclusion to systematic archaeological investigation. Or research. Sorry for being a little pedantic, but I'm seeing a false dichotomy here, that you either do 'research' archaeology (considered by some the be 'good' archaeology) or you do commercial archaeology (considered by some to be 'bad' archaeology). To my mind, both are archaeology, both are trying to answer questions, both are feeding into the general body of knowledge, and both at least should be done to the best possible standards.
In England at least, there are a series of regional research strategies as well as an English Heritage National Heritage Protection Plan......this could be considered as a research agenda for all 'varieties' of archaeology....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Trying to get this back on track (although the research v commercial discussion is good stuff we have been here before on BAJR) I would endorse Kevin's comment about 'licensing' being the elephant in the room as regards Valetta. HMG response on this has always been that the system of planning conditions/WSIs/work in line with IFA Standards etc provides the same type of cover as a formal licensing system.
Anyone involved in archaeology (especially of the commercial type) knows that this is complete rubbish - firstly it only applies to archaeological work undertaken within the planning system, secondly it relies on an under-resourced process of having archaeological advisors within that planning system applying a set of standards devised by an organisation mainly representing the contractors/consultants who carry out the work.
At the moment anyone can call themselves an archaeologist and can go out and excavate (in line with IFA standards or in complete disregard of same) a significant archaeological site, as long as it is not a Scheduled Monument and the excavator has the landowner's consent and the scale of the excavation does not itself bring the work within the planning regime. It might be nice to inform the county archaeologist of this work but it is not essential. In what way is this in line with Valetta?
Any assertion that our current system is compliant with Valetta requires some agreement that IFA Standards are appropriate and are adequately applied and policed - surely any reading of this forum would throw up a series of questions on this issue.
However - is it not the case that the IFA is now very well-positioned with regard to 'licensing' and therefore compliance with Valetta? It is the IFA that has produced the Standards that HMG regard as being at the heart of the current system that (apparently) ensures compliance with Valetta. Now that the IFA is Chartered, then it is surely in pole position to be in charge of any subsequent system that HMG can point to on the same matter. I would suggest that Chartered Archaeologists registered with the Chartered IFA would be regarded by HMG as a useful form of 'licensing' that would enable compliance with international obligations. What future then for non-IFA archaeologists whether professional or non-professional?
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
beamo Wrote:However - is it not the case that the IFA is now very well-positioned with regard to 'licensing' and therefore compliance with Valetta? It is the IFA that has produced the Standards that HMG regard as being at the heart of the current system that (apparently) ensures compliance with Valetta. Now that the IFA is Chartered, then it is surely in pole position to be in charge of any subsequent system that HMG can point to on the same matter. I would suggest that Chartered Archaeologists registered with the Chartered IFA would be regarded by HMG as a useful form of 'licensing' that would enable compliance with international obligations. What future then for non-IFA archaeologists whether professional or non-professional?
Very good questions Beamo.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Tool Wrote:Isn't all archaeology, by definition, research? 
yes it is - well spotted.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Very good questions Beamo.....
very good answers to
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2010
P Prentice Wrote:yes it is - well spotted.
Yes but you can't publish a paper about negative results! However, while I agree in theory it's all research clearly it's not, the majority of work finds nothing and is only undertaken to prove a negative!
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
8th April 2014, 04:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 10th April 2014, 12:09 PM by Marc Berger.)
I am with you on that Archexile and it can only come from a watching brief ...which should only have been done after an equally dull evaluation....The concept of undertaking an excavation after an evaluation and not finding anything would be a bit questionable.
The "re"search value of the negative is purely that of the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and we can get that even when we decide that something is there. I must say that I struggle with the concept of "re"search when applied to excavation archaeology. Why isn't it just called search? On a site are we confirmining/reaffirming the results of others, possibly we might be confirming some bodies prediction -confirming some three age system or other but I don't think that its research. Its the creation of archaeology from destructive observation(a search made by index) made all the more unique by location. Where is the re about it. Its hardly repeatable.
Bending my wan back to "ifa to be abolished" I was wondering what the ifa considered a suitably qualified person to undertake excavation according to article 3 of the Valetta convention. Looking again at their list of things that you might like to submit to show how gifted you are to become a member, I presume that the Valetta qualification to excavate is of a lesser order than writing excavation reports or HER audits HLF bids or spec writing. Came across this that informs us that professionalism is not about earning a living form knowledge.
http://www.pia-journal.co.uk/article/view/pia.392/507 Note that although it was presented to a University the author had no difficulty in ignoring any contribution from such establishments to his definitions on expert and professional.
What digging is about is professionalism in excavation.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2012
13th April 2014, 01:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 13th April 2014, 02:19 AM by John Wells.)
Marc Berger Wrote:With all respect to SPR they don't appear to have academic institutions that have been handing out graduate degrees in radiological protection for a century or so. Archaeology has Institutes and international schools that refer back to Royal societies of the 19th century.
That is the point. The SRP was only founded in the 1960s, but it now clearly defines the professional requirements of its members, something that 'archaeology' could have done a long time ago. This excludes the archaeological sciences and sub-categories, which by comparison (and their nature), are well defined. In turn, the members of the SRP apply agreed international standards to their work, which are incorporated into national regulations, codes of practice and the law.
Institutions have been, and are, handing out degrees in 'Archaeology', but one has absolutely no idea what this 'Archaeology' is, unless you see a course transcript.
Professions dealing with money or health cannot be so ill defined. It all boils down, analogously, to whether or not you see archaeological sites as being of value and/or at risk.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
14th April 2014, 06:34 PM
archaeologyexile Wrote:Yes but you can't publish a paper about negative results! However, while I agree in theory it's all research clearly it's not, the majority of work finds nothing and is only undertaken to prove a negative!
Yeah you can.............in fact I have an idea for a tidy little paper on it and I've read at least one paper about where neolithic pits aren't.
