21st June 2005, 03:57 PM
Yeah, cheers.
I still don't understand how someone with no field experience can consult about a subject they only know one side of. (the planning side) Too many times I've found myself showing archaeological features to a consultant who has a glazed look and clear lack of understanding of what techniques will be best employed. Does this individual take my word for it or just make something up to tell the developer?
I'll admit I have also worked with consultants who are very experienced in fieldwork, and they are much easier to deal with than the inexperienced ones. By the sounds of it though they may be a dying breed. The relative wage difference will pretty much ensure that individuals who go right into consultancy or curating won't ever get field experience. I bet the developers expect field proficiency in their consultants, but naively assume the title "archaeologist" requires it.(as I did)
If a career in archaeological consultancy or curating now no longer requires field experience then I despair. Imagine consultant surgeons with no experience of surgery!
Consultants are not unpopular because they treat developers like human beings. (Most field archs do also,it would be commercial suicide to do otherwise.) The [u]unpopular </u>consultants are that way because they are usually either:
A)Clueless about the realities of archaeological methodology.
or
B) Less than fully honest with developer or archaeological contractors.
Both of these situations dramatically increase the potential for confrontation rather than decreasing it.
I still don't understand how someone with no field experience can consult about a subject they only know one side of. (the planning side) Too many times I've found myself showing archaeological features to a consultant who has a glazed look and clear lack of understanding of what techniques will be best employed. Does this individual take my word for it or just make something up to tell the developer?
I'll admit I have also worked with consultants who are very experienced in fieldwork, and they are much easier to deal with than the inexperienced ones. By the sounds of it though they may be a dying breed. The relative wage difference will pretty much ensure that individuals who go right into consultancy or curating won't ever get field experience. I bet the developers expect field proficiency in their consultants, but naively assume the title "archaeologist" requires it.(as I did)
If a career in archaeological consultancy or curating now no longer requires field experience then I despair. Imagine consultant surgeons with no experience of surgery!
Consultants are not unpopular because they treat developers like human beings. (Most field archs do also,it would be commercial suicide to do otherwise.) The [u]unpopular </u>consultants are that way because they are usually either:
A)Clueless about the realities of archaeological methodology.
or
B) Less than fully honest with developer or archaeological contractors.
Both of these situations dramatically increase the potential for confrontation rather than decreasing it.