30th April 2005, 10:16 AM
Hiya. Just nipped back to the orifice from site, and thought this thread was particularly interesting.
The SA debate has got to the crux of the matter I think. Commercial archaeology is hierarchical, it is organised to make profit (or at least break even,) and this keeps a number of people at Site Assistant level down. I think that a good number of people now at SA level have been convinced or beaten into submission by management that they are shovel monkeys.
I dont know what the answer is, but I feel that the separation of the excavation and post-excavation processes (i.e. a supervisor or PO goes off at the end and does the report, or someone completely random in the bigger units)is a big problem. IF everyone at SA level knew exacatly how a site archive needs to 'work' to best facilitate a report, you would see the standard of work on sites improve.
Unfortunately I cant see this happening in commercial archaeology as it has cost implications. I gained this sort of experience by involving myself in a research project, but the quality of research projects is highly varied. People need to be taught post-ex in the same way as people get taught excavation. Due to the fact that commercial archaeology is often skewed to site 'clearance' with large projects sitting in units archives (as paltry post-ex budgets are argued over) the importance of post-ex, and the learning process attached to it, is often being marginalised.
Back off to site then...
Gumbo
The SA debate has got to the crux of the matter I think. Commercial archaeology is hierarchical, it is organised to make profit (or at least break even,) and this keeps a number of people at Site Assistant level down. I think that a good number of people now at SA level have been convinced or beaten into submission by management that they are shovel monkeys.
I dont know what the answer is, but I feel that the separation of the excavation and post-excavation processes (i.e. a supervisor or PO goes off at the end and does the report, or someone completely random in the bigger units)is a big problem. IF everyone at SA level knew exacatly how a site archive needs to 'work' to best facilitate a report, you would see the standard of work on sites improve.
Unfortunately I cant see this happening in commercial archaeology as it has cost implications. I gained this sort of experience by involving myself in a research project, but the quality of research projects is highly varied. People need to be taught post-ex in the same way as people get taught excavation. Due to the fact that commercial archaeology is often skewed to site 'clearance' with large projects sitting in units archives (as paltry post-ex budgets are argued over) the importance of post-ex, and the learning process attached to it, is often being marginalised.
Back off to site then...
Gumbo