4th September 2008, 12:51 PM
Hmmm... do I want to come across as some fluffy, eco-loving, swampyesque Trot? What the hey... and sorry this, is going to come across as a bit disjointed and not well thought through. But, 'tis a gut reaction to the question.
Profit is not immoral in itself, but it is when it is exploitative... and, unfortunately, I have seen archaeological exploitation (of staff, resources, ethics and, yes, even the archaeology itself). Sometimes, I've felt (actually been) exploited. Sometimes, I've felt like I wanted to be the exploitee. We've all been there. Fat-cat archaeolgists do exist. I've seen them drive past in their Range Rovers, while I carry on digging the sh*t. We've all been there... some of us even aspire(d) to be the fat-cat driving by.
Archaeology has been a private sector thing for some time now (agreed). Have standards fallen or been degraded? In the most part, I think not... in some cases standards have risen. And of course, no-one setting up in business is doing it for purely (solely) altruistic reasons. There has to be some financial / material gain. Yet, even in the supposed bad-old days, there was a sense of community and mucking-in together (hey, in the dim-and-distant past I've seen the unit director shovelling sh*t). Archaeology was the uppermost thing in our minds (yes, the money did come in useful... usually to pay for beer and fags). I think that the loss of that cammeraderie (or just the feeling of it) is one of the casualties of competitive tendering.
I've just done a trawl of the internet to get some 'background' stuff (for either side of the argument). I found what appeared to be a spot-on article entitled Private Sector Archaeology(Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?)- I've found that I have to pay $25 to see it. Since when did it become ok for knowledge (or rather access to it) to have a price? Should eveything have a price?
Surely if we wanted to profit from archaeology... we should have become the tombraiders we abhor, and not had bothered with all that education and mud-buddy stuff to become the archaeologists aspire to be (or already are).
Profit is not immoral in itself, but it is when it is exploitative... and, unfortunately, I have seen archaeological exploitation (of staff, resources, ethics and, yes, even the archaeology itself). Sometimes, I've felt (actually been) exploited. Sometimes, I've felt like I wanted to be the exploitee. We've all been there. Fat-cat archaeolgists do exist. I've seen them drive past in their Range Rovers, while I carry on digging the sh*t. We've all been there... some of us even aspire(d) to be the fat-cat driving by.
Archaeology has been a private sector thing for some time now (agreed). Have standards fallen or been degraded? In the most part, I think not... in some cases standards have risen. And of course, no-one setting up in business is doing it for purely (solely) altruistic reasons. There has to be some financial / material gain. Yet, even in the supposed bad-old days, there was a sense of community and mucking-in together (hey, in the dim-and-distant past I've seen the unit director shovelling sh*t). Archaeology was the uppermost thing in our minds (yes, the money did come in useful... usually to pay for beer and fags). I think that the loss of that cammeraderie (or just the feeling of it) is one of the casualties of competitive tendering.
I've just done a trawl of the internet to get some 'background' stuff (for either side of the argument). I found what appeared to be a spot-on article entitled Private Sector Archaeology(Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?)- I've found that I have to pay $25 to see it. Since when did it become ok for knowledge (or rather access to it) to have a price? Should eveything have a price?
Surely if we wanted to profit from archaeology... we should have become the tombraiders we abhor, and not had bothered with all that education and mud-buddy stuff to become the archaeologists aspire to be (or already are).