19th March 2010, 05:53 PM
Hi Chaps
I dispute your basic contention that commercial archaeology "has deteriorated and lost its way". It's got it's problems but there has never been some golden age from which heady heights of pure subjective academic investigation we have fallen! The amount of money has gone up for projects, the number of qualified staff has risen, there is an acceptance by developers that archaeology is part of the development process, elected members are far more aware of archaeology then ever before. Sampling procedures and redundancy in analysis has honed the skills of post-ex specialists and excavation staff to squeeze maximum information from datasets. The use of GIS and GPS mapping means evidence can be analysed quickly, ideas tested and strategies adapted to new circumstances. Radio-carbon dating is more accurate and getting cheaper, other forms of scientific techniques are telling us more and more about the past. There were more archaeological reports produced in the last ten years than ever before and there is a legal basis for requiring reports to be submitted to the HER.
Do you really believe that commercial archaeology was better in, say 1995, or 1990, or (god help us) before PPG16?
I am also very worried about this statement:
"can produce a case study (if you wish) where the sub contexts of a data set has been missed meaning that the data has been interpreted in a profoundly different way from and an alternative manner... moreover the meaning and context of the data is frozen by research agendas imposed by said middle management."
Mainly I'm worried because I don't believe it makes any sense whatsoever, what do you mean "a profoundly different way from and an alternative manner"? That's just weird, sorry but it is!
You also make this point:
"The problem is this those arguing for a wider analysis and the error of site specific agendas can not win the argument until they demonstrate what it is we are failing to understand by restricting our methodology its a catch 22 which means we are perpetually caught in a tedious theoretical argument for which there is no resolution because systemically its nigh on impossible to change anything"
I thought you wanted site specific analysis instead of more general research aims because they produced bias? I think your contradicting yourself a lot here chap.
It might really help if instead of writing enigmatic sort-of theory statements you actually say how you would do it different!
I dispute your basic contention that commercial archaeology "has deteriorated and lost its way". It's got it's problems but there has never been some golden age from which heady heights of pure subjective academic investigation we have fallen! The amount of money has gone up for projects, the number of qualified staff has risen, there is an acceptance by developers that archaeology is part of the development process, elected members are far more aware of archaeology then ever before. Sampling procedures and redundancy in analysis has honed the skills of post-ex specialists and excavation staff to squeeze maximum information from datasets. The use of GIS and GPS mapping means evidence can be analysed quickly, ideas tested and strategies adapted to new circumstances. Radio-carbon dating is more accurate and getting cheaper, other forms of scientific techniques are telling us more and more about the past. There were more archaeological reports produced in the last ten years than ever before and there is a legal basis for requiring reports to be submitted to the HER.
Do you really believe that commercial archaeology was better in, say 1995, or 1990, or (god help us) before PPG16?
I am also very worried about this statement:
"can produce a case study (if you wish) where the sub contexts of a data set has been missed meaning that the data has been interpreted in a profoundly different way from and an alternative manner... moreover the meaning and context of the data is frozen by research agendas imposed by said middle management."
Mainly I'm worried because I don't believe it makes any sense whatsoever, what do you mean "a profoundly different way from and an alternative manner"? That's just weird, sorry but it is!
You also make this point:
"The problem is this those arguing for a wider analysis and the error of site specific agendas can not win the argument until they demonstrate what it is we are failing to understand by restricting our methodology its a catch 22 which means we are perpetually caught in a tedious theoretical argument for which there is no resolution because systemically its nigh on impossible to change anything"
I thought you wanted site specific analysis instead of more general research aims because they produced bias? I think your contradicting yourself a lot here chap.
It might really help if instead of writing enigmatic sort-of theory statements you actually say how you would do it different!
Steven