29th July 2010, 12:34 AM
Dino is patronising again! Please stop it. Yes, commercial archaeologists do what they are contracted to do - that's what I do too - but in my experience there is always a phase of negotiations BEFORE the moment when it is agreed what the client is buying - indeed, there is often an on-going discussion throughout the length of the project about the needs of the heritage assets - well, hopefully. Many briefs do contain the requirement for outreach and public access, but how often does all of that which is initially desired actually see the light of day? How much gets pared down because of reticence on the part of the client to pay for more than is necessary - and, I repeat not eliminated but pared down? I doubt if there is any research out there into what was initially expected and what was actually delivered - all very difficult to quantify and shrouded, no doubt, under that catch all 'commercially sensitive' excuse.
I believe that PMs, because they are in the vanguard of our profession ought to be among the lead advocates in our discipline, together with consultants, of all aspects of archaeological endeavour. I believe they ought to be the best of archaeologists managerially, academically and ethically - and their employers should see to it that they get maximum training in all manner of things commensurate with their roles at the lead of our discipline. Curators and museum archaeologists can propose, suggest - insist even - but the onus lies on others in the commercial sector (consultants and contractors) to see, through diligent advocacy, that clients understand the benefits (corporate social responsibility) of public archaeology.
So Dino, please stop thinking that some of us are confused about roles - we just believe that there ought to be a more collective effort to promote archaeology, its benefits and whatever good things about it are at the top of every archaeologist's list of worthy things about archaeology. To insist that contractors are there just to do what their clients pay them to do is, I am sorry to say, an extremely sad indictment of how fragmented the archaeological profession has become over the last 20 years or so. For the record, I have seen a lot of changes since my first job in the early 80s, but never more so than now. Dino's comments, though he would say that he is being realistic and I am an idealist, are depressing to say the very least. It is sad that even the mere suggestion from one group of archaeologists that we should ALL in our profession seek to promote, advocate and demonstrate public benefit of archaeology is met by the retort from some that it is 'just not what I get paid to do'.
I believe that PMs, because they are in the vanguard of our profession ought to be among the lead advocates in our discipline, together with consultants, of all aspects of archaeological endeavour. I believe they ought to be the best of archaeologists managerially, academically and ethically - and their employers should see to it that they get maximum training in all manner of things commensurate with their roles at the lead of our discipline. Curators and museum archaeologists can propose, suggest - insist even - but the onus lies on others in the commercial sector (consultants and contractors) to see, through diligent advocacy, that clients understand the benefits (corporate social responsibility) of public archaeology.
So Dino, please stop thinking that some of us are confused about roles - we just believe that there ought to be a more collective effort to promote archaeology, its benefits and whatever good things about it are at the top of every archaeologist's list of worthy things about archaeology. To insist that contractors are there just to do what their clients pay them to do is, I am sorry to say, an extremely sad indictment of how fragmented the archaeological profession has become over the last 20 years or so. For the record, I have seen a lot of changes since my first job in the early 80s, but never more so than now. Dino's comments, though he would say that he is being realistic and I am an idealist, are depressing to say the very least. It is sad that even the mere suggestion from one group of archaeologists that we should ALL in our profession seek to promote, advocate and demonstrate public benefit of archaeology is met by the retort from some that it is 'just not what I get paid to do'.