17th July 2006, 09:43 PM
I'd say that the issue of volunteers working on commercial sites is something of a side issue. Surely the most useful contribution that volunteers can make is to work on sites or landscapes that aren't threatened by immediate development but are nevertheless of interest. There is a tendency amongst some of us working in the commercial sector to think that this is all that there is to archaeology (and, I must say, for those who spend most of their time digging, to see excavation as synonymous with archaeology). But this is not the case of course. Survey of all types, work on parish or other documents, churchyard surveys and building surveys are all of value and as the bodies of data increase in number, are likely to provide a resource of real value to researchers in both archaeology and history. The Mellor project in Gtr. Manchester may offer a model for collaborative excavation projects.
I have worked for a number of groups funded by the LHI and similar, mainly to provide advice on the identification of pottery and in some instances to write reports on specific assemblages. Such groups usually include people with a diverse range of interests and skills and the remit of the projects is equally wide. There is enormous scope for a range of archaeological activities that fall outside the range of commercial archaeology and I am tempted to say - why bother with commercial archaeology (given the avialability of funding) when there is so much more to be done outside this area?
I know that certain individuals (naming no names - do I need to?) see this attitude as in some way patronising - but I fail to see why - the work undertaken by local and regional groups is often closer to real research than many of us in commercial archaeology can ever get. What it may (emphasise 'may') lack is a research profile which fits in with wider research agendas, but this is largely a logistical problem and is something that should probably be brought to the attention of the funding bodies and to local groups themselves. What is of some concern is that all the different local groups seem to be working in isolation from each other - I imagine that there is a lot of duplication in areas such as database construction, website design, fieldwalking and survey tactics and so on which could be eliminated to considerable advantage. Some forum or debate might also throw up common interests and so on which would feed into wider research agendas. Maybe this is something the CBA could address - I would suggest that RESCUE had a role here, but I think that currently we lack the infrastructure to tackle it.
Anyway, I'm impressed by the work being done by the groups I have come into contact with and I hope that the Lottery continues to provide money for them - far better than wasting it on a bunch of overpaid steroid junkies plodding round a track or throwing their orbs around on prime time US TV!
Chris Cumberpatch
I have worked for a number of groups funded by the LHI and similar, mainly to provide advice on the identification of pottery and in some instances to write reports on specific assemblages. Such groups usually include people with a diverse range of interests and skills and the remit of the projects is equally wide. There is enormous scope for a range of archaeological activities that fall outside the range of commercial archaeology and I am tempted to say - why bother with commercial archaeology (given the avialability of funding) when there is so much more to be done outside this area?
I know that certain individuals (naming no names - do I need to?) see this attitude as in some way patronising - but I fail to see why - the work undertaken by local and regional groups is often closer to real research than many of us in commercial archaeology can ever get. What it may (emphasise 'may') lack is a research profile which fits in with wider research agendas, but this is largely a logistical problem and is something that should probably be brought to the attention of the funding bodies and to local groups themselves. What is of some concern is that all the different local groups seem to be working in isolation from each other - I imagine that there is a lot of duplication in areas such as database construction, website design, fieldwalking and survey tactics and so on which could be eliminated to considerable advantage. Some forum or debate might also throw up common interests and so on which would feed into wider research agendas. Maybe this is something the CBA could address - I would suggest that RESCUE had a role here, but I think that currently we lack the infrastructure to tackle it.
Anyway, I'm impressed by the work being done by the groups I have come into contact with and I hope that the Lottery continues to provide money for them - far better than wasting it on a bunch of overpaid steroid junkies plodding round a track or throwing their orbs around on prime time US TV!
Chris Cumberpatch