18th September 2008, 02:54 PM
in reply to andy.bicket
sounds like a nice site! It's one of those awful moments of mixed emotion when you hit something unexpected like that and its really fantastic, but you know its really up in the air as to whether it gets done properly and you really pray the development control do their job. When you get a result like yours it feels great, when you don't you just feel sick, and very, very angry.
The finding of 'new' sites means more work will now be done in that area as there are now 'spots on the map'to show up on DBAs, but without occasionally synthesising this new data we don't actually go forward and analyse the new information to feed into research frameworks as other than find spots. We don't get to see what they really mean and understand whether we should be digging more holes there, or up the slope. So what could we do?
What about a system where proper regional research frameworks and strategies are written, and used, and a levy is put on all sites to feed into synthetic research as identified in the strategies. Say 5% added cost. Big sites would still get their thematic chapters and 'research', but there would be money to synthesise the ongoing findings so it can be fed back into the system and improve our understanding of the whole, not the individual, so making it easier to predict how much will be on a site etc etc. So it could benefit developers, albeit indirectly. The fund should not be available to bail out under-budgeted sites. The money could also be available to fund those topics that find it very hard to attract developer funding at present like finds and environmental. The research wouldn't be top-end academic noodling, but the kind of data analysis that is needed to compare sites and build up an understanding of whats going on, or to refine dating sequences etc. Stuff that is intrinsically useful, not that goes off down side alleys. As defined by agreed regional/local guidelines and strategies.
Unfortunately the fragmented nature of archaeology doesn't really help,with 20+ units competing in some areas but maybe we just have to work around that and use this kind of 'research' to drive up standards so that the work done on site and off is done to the kind of standards that will allow work like this.
Now under 1m1u's definition, this may all be classed as 'research' (his definition), but he argues that you have to read up on the sites around/books etc etc, but if no-one ever does the 'research' to write the synthetic/academic books that he says he expects people to refer to in their reports, then who will? It will all be out of date. Ah, academics do that though, funded by tax payers. But then that is subsidising the developers as they don't pay for the academics for their specific site (polluter pays principle). It all goes round in circles, but if the resource is valuable then so is what it tells us on wider levels and how it advances our knowledge. Most developers would rather see a quality academic report (and hopefully an accessible booklet too) than some grey literature full of archive tables.
I think 1m1u's point was that we shouldn't push developers too far, eg into funding a new set of academic monographs based on a peritheral link to something found on a site, and I agree totally. But I don't think the responsibility to publish a site stops as low as he maybe infers. I also agree that we should push to get more funding/expand the planning definitions, but all of a sudden, everyone appears to be rather skint.....
sounds like a nice site! It's one of those awful moments of mixed emotion when you hit something unexpected like that and its really fantastic, but you know its really up in the air as to whether it gets done properly and you really pray the development control do their job. When you get a result like yours it feels great, when you don't you just feel sick, and very, very angry.
The finding of 'new' sites means more work will now be done in that area as there are now 'spots on the map'to show up on DBAs, but without occasionally synthesising this new data we don't actually go forward and analyse the new information to feed into research frameworks as other than find spots. We don't get to see what they really mean and understand whether we should be digging more holes there, or up the slope. So what could we do?
What about a system where proper regional research frameworks and strategies are written, and used, and a levy is put on all sites to feed into synthetic research as identified in the strategies. Say 5% added cost. Big sites would still get their thematic chapters and 'research', but there would be money to synthesise the ongoing findings so it can be fed back into the system and improve our understanding of the whole, not the individual, so making it easier to predict how much will be on a site etc etc. So it could benefit developers, albeit indirectly. The fund should not be available to bail out under-budgeted sites. The money could also be available to fund those topics that find it very hard to attract developer funding at present like finds and environmental. The research wouldn't be top-end academic noodling, but the kind of data analysis that is needed to compare sites and build up an understanding of whats going on, or to refine dating sequences etc. Stuff that is intrinsically useful, not that goes off down side alleys. As defined by agreed regional/local guidelines and strategies.
Unfortunately the fragmented nature of archaeology doesn't really help,with 20+ units competing in some areas but maybe we just have to work around that and use this kind of 'research' to drive up standards so that the work done on site and off is done to the kind of standards that will allow work like this.
Now under 1m1u's definition, this may all be classed as 'research' (his definition), but he argues that you have to read up on the sites around/books etc etc, but if no-one ever does the 'research' to write the synthetic/academic books that he says he expects people to refer to in their reports, then who will? It will all be out of date. Ah, academics do that though, funded by tax payers. But then that is subsidising the developers as they don't pay for the academics for their specific site (polluter pays principle). It all goes round in circles, but if the resource is valuable then so is what it tells us on wider levels and how it advances our knowledge. Most developers would rather see a quality academic report (and hopefully an accessible booklet too) than some grey literature full of archive tables.
I think 1m1u's point was that we shouldn't push developers too far, eg into funding a new set of academic monographs based on a peritheral link to something found on a site, and I agree totally. But I don't think the responsibility to publish a site stops as low as he maybe infers. I also agree that we should push to get more funding/expand the planning definitions, but all of a sudden, everyone appears to be rather skint.....