30th May 2008, 11:50 PM
hmmmmmm, lots to comment on....
firstly I take your point invisible, I know that several professions require some business knowledge before one can become a 'full member', and I think something similar could and should be implemented in archaeology, but I still wonder whether it would change any thing without a shift in how archaeologists view themselves.
SClarkP; I don't think I agree with your view that archaeologists should stick to archaeology and leave others to manage things, as archaeological management is very tricky as we are not dealing with standard materials or products, but with unique sites. This means that the scope of any work done (and therefore the cost and financial risk) is tied up in a complex system where interpretations have a material impact on the level of work done. Moreover, this interpretation must be agreed between parties who represent opposing interests. It would not be sensible to introduce a non-archaeologist to this, as an archaeological background is crucial to understanding the risks of archaeological projects, whereas a business background is not necessary to understand business processes (remember the chip shop owners!!). Hence the need for archaeologists to engage with this, it may not be what everyone would prefer, but not everyone can become a research professor I'm afraid!! Also, having a non-archaeological finance director won't make much difference as it is the operational management which will determine the turnover and profitability of the company.
Unit of One; I don't think a WSI requiring that specialists verify the type and date of artefactual evidence would really count as a 'stitch up'. The reason this is done is because things often change in the world of ceramic dating (for instance) and you may find that what was accepted wisdom 5 to 10 years ago is laughable now. Specialists keep up to date with this so the rest of us do not have to. Without them we risk making assumptions without the backing of the most up to date collaborative research, which (I am sure you would agree) rather defeats the purpose. Also, I am a manager AND an archaeologist, and the list I gave you consists of things you would have to do to make that project happen, no matter how small the operation. I am not sure about this emphasis on the individual either, while I do value experienced people, the strength of archaeology as a science is cumulative and collaborative research, not the accumulated experience of a single individual. Given the diverse roles needed to truely understand an archaeological site, I believe a 'team' approach to be crucial, and do not see anything wrong with the notion that the basic unit for undertaking archaeological projects should be a team of people rather than an individual......of course correct me if I am misunderstanding your statements.
"don't panic!"
firstly I take your point invisible, I know that several professions require some business knowledge before one can become a 'full member', and I think something similar could and should be implemented in archaeology, but I still wonder whether it would change any thing without a shift in how archaeologists view themselves.
SClarkP; I don't think I agree with your view that archaeologists should stick to archaeology and leave others to manage things, as archaeological management is very tricky as we are not dealing with standard materials or products, but with unique sites. This means that the scope of any work done (and therefore the cost and financial risk) is tied up in a complex system where interpretations have a material impact on the level of work done. Moreover, this interpretation must be agreed between parties who represent opposing interests. It would not be sensible to introduce a non-archaeologist to this, as an archaeological background is crucial to understanding the risks of archaeological projects, whereas a business background is not necessary to understand business processes (remember the chip shop owners!!). Hence the need for archaeologists to engage with this, it may not be what everyone would prefer, but not everyone can become a research professor I'm afraid!! Also, having a non-archaeological finance director won't make much difference as it is the operational management which will determine the turnover and profitability of the company.
Unit of One; I don't think a WSI requiring that specialists verify the type and date of artefactual evidence would really count as a 'stitch up'. The reason this is done is because things often change in the world of ceramic dating (for instance) and you may find that what was accepted wisdom 5 to 10 years ago is laughable now. Specialists keep up to date with this so the rest of us do not have to. Without them we risk making assumptions without the backing of the most up to date collaborative research, which (I am sure you would agree) rather defeats the purpose. Also, I am a manager AND an archaeologist, and the list I gave you consists of things you would have to do to make that project happen, no matter how small the operation. I am not sure about this emphasis on the individual either, while I do value experienced people, the strength of archaeology as a science is cumulative and collaborative research, not the accumulated experience of a single individual. Given the diverse roles needed to truely understand an archaeological site, I believe a 'team' approach to be crucial, and do not see anything wrong with the notion that the basic unit for undertaking archaeological projects should be a team of people rather than an individual......of course correct me if I am misunderstanding your statements.
"don't panic!"