11th February 2008, 02:24 PM
Interesting. A couple of points from my own perspective...
In an absolutely free and fair open market the advantage should actually lie with the local organisation surely? With experience and accumulated knowledge a local organisation should have a feel for the likely results (and already have copies of local historic mapping, for example) and the conditions on site and be able to make a more accurate judgement about timescales, costs and research implications.
Sadly of course we do not have an absolutely free and fair open market and the local organisation is often not even asked to tender at all by big consultancies.
I am not sure if I have taken this out of context. However I would disagree with the statement as presented here. The 'digger' is the first in a long line of people who interpret the evidence - there is no such thing as truly 'objective' archaeology. Lots of work has been done on this. The 'digger' needs to be as well informed as the final report editor on the current debates and case studies that relate to the theory and practice of that particular site type and period.
Every archaeologist is an 'expert'. In the UK at least even the lowliest member of staff has an archaeology degree and/or an equivalent level of hard-won experience and is usually 'expert' in some aspect of the discipline (ie. they know more than the average). To some extent data collection is universal, that is the whole rationale behind 'preservation by record'. However this doesn't always work because the evidence is always subject to some degree of interpretation (your mid-brown is someone else's light brown and so-on). In practice we should all be able to go and do something outside our normal time and space. Indeed I would say we MUST all go and do some completely different archaeology to keep ourselves fresh. But inevitably we all develop an interest or enthusiasm in a particular area - Mayan temples, 19th century blast furnaces or Roman Villas in Gloucestershire.
So the short answer is 'yes' we will inevitably have geographic and temporal competence that is better in some areas than in others, but also 'yes' to bringing expertise to bear from outside the narrow confines of a particular competence. I have had invaluable insights into post-medieval sites from prehistorians, and vice versa. My experience in the UK has been of benefit to sites I have worked on overseas, and vice versa.
Quote:quote:This kind of argument was used to bash consultants and competitive tendering arguing that local knowledge was vital. To a degree such local knowledge is important but the argument is it legal, worthwhile and practical to implement.
In an absolutely free and fair open market the advantage should actually lie with the local organisation surely? With experience and accumulated knowledge a local organisation should have a feel for the likely results (and already have copies of local historic mapping, for example) and the conditions on site and be able to make a more accurate judgement about timescales, costs and research implications.
Sadly of course we do not have an absolutely free and fair open market and the local organisation is often not even asked to tender at all by big consultancies.
Quote:quote:the final interpretation is done in post X
I am not sure if I have taken this out of context. However I would disagree with the statement as presented here. The 'digger' is the first in a long line of people who interpret the evidence - there is no such thing as truly 'objective' archaeology. Lots of work has been done on this. The 'digger' needs to be as well informed as the final report editor on the current debates and case studies that relate to the theory and practice of that particular site type and period.
Quote:quote:Should an archaeologist have a geographic or temporal area of competence? or is the activity of field data collection universal.. where by applying archaeological methods it does not matter if you dig Assyrian, Mayan or Saxon.. you collect data the same way, it is up to the experts to interpret?
Every archaeologist is an 'expert'. In the UK at least even the lowliest member of staff has an archaeology degree and/or an equivalent level of hard-won experience and is usually 'expert' in some aspect of the discipline (ie. they know more than the average). To some extent data collection is universal, that is the whole rationale behind 'preservation by record'. However this doesn't always work because the evidence is always subject to some degree of interpretation (your mid-brown is someone else's light brown and so-on). In practice we should all be able to go and do something outside our normal time and space. Indeed I would say we MUST all go and do some completely different archaeology to keep ourselves fresh. But inevitably we all develop an interest or enthusiasm in a particular area - Mayan temples, 19th century blast furnaces or Roman Villas in Gloucestershire.
So the short answer is 'yes' we will inevitably have geographic and temporal competence that is better in some areas than in others, but also 'yes' to bringing expertise to bear from outside the narrow confines of a particular competence. I have had invaluable insights into post-medieval sites from prehistorians, and vice versa. My experience in the UK has been of benefit to sites I have worked on overseas, and vice versa.