21st April 2011, 06:55 PM
I suspect that this may not be a popular view, but it's never been entirely clear to me why volunteers would want to work on the majority of professional-run sites. Sure, there will always be a few fantastic sites excavated on a commercial basis (and I've happily worked alongside volunteers on some sites like this), but my impression is that most professional archaeological contractors spend most of their time undertaking evaluations that may not find anything, or dodging heavy plant on development sites while trying to record whatever scrappy features may have survived subsequent development while the developer whinges about the cost and delay. Whereas an archaeology society can pick a decent example of a particular site-type, approach the landowner for permission, and excavate it, knowing from the outset that they're virtually certain to find decent archaeology. While I can understand the desire to be involved in the best-preserved or most high-profile commercial excavations, I reckon that if you took a random sample of ten commercial excavations and ten society excavations, a higher proportion of the volunteer excavations would be taking place on interesting sites with decent preservation, simply because local societies are able to select where and what they want to dig, rather than only being able to work in areas where development is proposed.:face-stir:
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum