29th April 2009, 11:54 AM
To state my position from the beginning, PPG16 needs overhauling. We've been saying that for years.
But, I really feel I have to stick up for commercial archaeology in the UK. Personally, I think a lot of the problems with negotiating for time and money in commercial archaeology stem directly from our lack of professionalism at the business proposition end. In later years, I personally thought that this had begun to improve.
Research and developer-led archaeology need to work in tandem because I do not think that it is possible to 100% excavate in a meaningful way in commercial archaeology. Not unless we enter YE GREATE DEPRESSION and Person Power Plus is introduced. (Don't mention the Ireland or I shall have steam coming out of my ears, the policy has not been a success there in my opinion and time will show us up.) However, commercial archaeology can and does make us of new techniques and theories proving valuable feedback for the academic community.
In this regard commercial archaeology can be a great asset. One of the criticisms I continually hear in academic circles is that we dig to fast. When this is applied to whole sites I agree. We've made huge leaps since the 1980's, but high on my wish list is a proper contingency plan for the odd site which turns out to be way more important than anyone could've imagined. Often though, I've heard the "too fast" criticism applied to the actual archaeologists and then I really do have to take issue. Discounting those who do shoddy work (there are some of those in every profession) someone who excavates practically every day develops a good eye and a feel for the geology, not to mention have honed their technique and are pretty fit too.
I've seen some pretty shoddy research digs too. Not because the the master plan wasn't good but because most research digs are essentially teaching exercises too and students who come fresh to archaeology are in at the deep end. In my dream world (all those unemployed archaeologists?) there'd be a qualified mentor at a ratio of no more than 1:5. I've been to conferences and symposia, where it has been painfully obvious that the presenter isn't aware of that part of interpretation where the coalface goes onto paper works. I for one am glad that I couldn't afford to go straight into post-graduate studies because I feel that I am a far better archaeologist for having worked in the field. I don't read site reports in the same way at all anymore.
And then, as Old Girl pointed out, PPG16 has had a good record of getting results published. I wish I could say the same for research where there's sometimes a 30 year lag. Dr Hamilakis came across as if he's never actually looked at an SMR or ordered up a report from the archives. Mind, I recall SMRs being briefly mentioned once as a student and never explained at all. I believe this has changed greatly since a lot now have an on-line presence, but maybe the curators need to remind their local universities from time to time what a wonderful resource they are?
I thought Kenny acquitted himself well. I still wish someone had mentioned the curator's role in planning though. We await the future.
Sorry Peter, will get off soapbox and return thread to topic
But, I really feel I have to stick up for commercial archaeology in the UK. Personally, I think a lot of the problems with negotiating for time and money in commercial archaeology stem directly from our lack of professionalism at the business proposition end. In later years, I personally thought that this had begun to improve.
Research and developer-led archaeology need to work in tandem because I do not think that it is possible to 100% excavate in a meaningful way in commercial archaeology. Not unless we enter YE GREATE DEPRESSION and Person Power Plus is introduced. (Don't mention the Ireland or I shall have steam coming out of my ears, the policy has not been a success there in my opinion and time will show us up.) However, commercial archaeology can and does make us of new techniques and theories proving valuable feedback for the academic community.
In this regard commercial archaeology can be a great asset. One of the criticisms I continually hear in academic circles is that we dig to fast. When this is applied to whole sites I agree. We've made huge leaps since the 1980's, but high on my wish list is a proper contingency plan for the odd site which turns out to be way more important than anyone could've imagined. Often though, I've heard the "too fast" criticism applied to the actual archaeologists and then I really do have to take issue. Discounting those who do shoddy work (there are some of those in every profession) someone who excavates practically every day develops a good eye and a feel for the geology, not to mention have honed their technique and are pretty fit too.
I've seen some pretty shoddy research digs too. Not because the the master plan wasn't good but because most research digs are essentially teaching exercises too and students who come fresh to archaeology are in at the deep end. In my dream world (all those unemployed archaeologists?) there'd be a qualified mentor at a ratio of no more than 1:5. I've been to conferences and symposia, where it has been painfully obvious that the presenter isn't aware of that part of interpretation where the coalface goes onto paper works. I for one am glad that I couldn't afford to go straight into post-graduate studies because I feel that I am a far better archaeologist for having worked in the field. I don't read site reports in the same way at all anymore.
And then, as Old Girl pointed out, PPG16 has had a good record of getting results published. I wish I could say the same for research where there's sometimes a 30 year lag. Dr Hamilakis came across as if he's never actually looked at an SMR or ordered up a report from the archives. Mind, I recall SMRs being briefly mentioned once as a student and never explained at all. I believe this has changed greatly since a lot now have an on-line presence, but maybe the curators need to remind their local universities from time to time what a wonderful resource they are?
I thought Kenny acquitted himself well. I still wish someone had mentioned the curator's role in planning though. We await the future.
Sorry Peter, will get off soapbox and return thread to topic