3rd May 2009, 05:27 PM
Have only just managed to listen again to the BBC Radio piece and feel a bit aggrieved, belittled and worthless as a result. Before anyone says this element is going off topic a little allow me to explain why I don't feel it is.
This is at least the second time that the glaring differences between how 'academic' and 'commercial' archaeologists work has come up (the other that I can think of is the Britarch article 'A professional mockery'). In both cases the commercial archaeologists have been criticised on a number of points by the academic, some of which are completely ignorant of the way the system works e.g. we are in the pocket of the developer (like curators and standards don't exist), we aren't processing the information in the right way or are in some way not experienced enough, and that the results are not publically accessible (OASIS website anyone, HER/SMR? Have they heard of these things? What about the hundreds of books and articles that are published? How is a grey literature report any less accessible than an article in a monograph costing ?150 and only available in a few university libraries). There were also other elements that came across as simply jealous - the idea of a developer tax seemed to be being pitched as a way of funding academic careers.
Anyway, straying from my point slightly, what would help the prospects of thousands of archaeologists in these difficult times immensely is a little support from our academic colleagues. Are any of them going to stand up and state how good and worthwhile the PPG system is, how much new information it has produced. It's not perfect by any means but Dr Hamilakis' comment that the archaeology is destroyed as part of the development did make me think, 'well duh!' But would anyone look at it if the planning guidance didn't exist? Many sites, in areas were there was thought to be little potential but where remains were found in evaluation would just be destroyed full stop. I can think of any number of areas in the region I work where the advances made through purely academic archaeological work are virtually nil, because work in advance of development is looking in areas they would be unlikely to touch such as urban areas.
In general though, what would help with preserving jobs and making the system stronger and more effective is more wide-spread support, understanding and information. If developers have never had to deal with it before and heard comments like those from 'an archaeologist' they might wonder why we bother. It would greatly benefit commercial archaeologists if the work they do was, in effect, entirely normalised in society.
It is difficult to cling onto your job if you can't justify to anyone why you do it.
This is at least the second time that the glaring differences between how 'academic' and 'commercial' archaeologists work has come up (the other that I can think of is the Britarch article 'A professional mockery'). In both cases the commercial archaeologists have been criticised on a number of points by the academic, some of which are completely ignorant of the way the system works e.g. we are in the pocket of the developer (like curators and standards don't exist), we aren't processing the information in the right way or are in some way not experienced enough, and that the results are not publically accessible (OASIS website anyone, HER/SMR? Have they heard of these things? What about the hundreds of books and articles that are published? How is a grey literature report any less accessible than an article in a monograph costing ?150 and only available in a few university libraries). There were also other elements that came across as simply jealous - the idea of a developer tax seemed to be being pitched as a way of funding academic careers.
Anyway, straying from my point slightly, what would help the prospects of thousands of archaeologists in these difficult times immensely is a little support from our academic colleagues. Are any of them going to stand up and state how good and worthwhile the PPG system is, how much new information it has produced. It's not perfect by any means but Dr Hamilakis' comment that the archaeology is destroyed as part of the development did make me think, 'well duh!' But would anyone look at it if the planning guidance didn't exist? Many sites, in areas were there was thought to be little potential but where remains were found in evaluation would just be destroyed full stop. I can think of any number of areas in the region I work where the advances made through purely academic archaeological work are virtually nil, because work in advance of development is looking in areas they would be unlikely to touch such as urban areas.
In general though, what would help with preserving jobs and making the system stronger and more effective is more wide-spread support, understanding and information. If developers have never had to deal with it before and heard comments like those from 'an archaeologist' they might wonder why we bother. It would greatly benefit commercial archaeologists if the work they do was, in effect, entirely normalised in society.
It is difficult to cling onto your job if you can't justify to anyone why you do it.