24th September 2008, 11:19 AM
Since I seem inadvertantly to be at least partly responsible for starting this thread perhaps it is about time I chipped in (I have been away for a while).
Digging the Dirt seems to be spot-on here:
The notion of corporate social responsibility is increasingly important and this is an area which could bring benefit to archaeology.
As to other contributions:
It is worth noting that the concepts of 'preservation in situ' and 'preservation by record' are increasingly regarded as inadequate - not just in the UK but elsewhere in Europe with developer-funded archaeology systems. The idea that a site can be 'preserved' in anything like an objective fashion by record is clearly nonsense - rather, such a process is actually archaeological research which will inevitably be subjective and which should, therefore, be done within the broader context of ongoing research. 'Preservation in situ' usually doesn't work either. Nevertheless these notions of 'preservation' are still current in UK planning guidance (PPG16) although the draft of PPG16's replacement eschews these terms (at least the one that I have seen).
There is certainly a gulf between 'academia' and 'commercial' archaeologies. But this is not unbridgeable, it just requires a lot of effort by both parties to engage. Bob's Roman site provides a good case study of the right sort of approach. See also Richard Bradley's paper in the Antiquaries Journal a couple of years ago.*
Finally, it is interesting (and worrying) that no-one has yet made reference to the various regional research frameworks that have been painstakingly produced by a mixture of commercial, curatorial and academic archaeologists under the aegis of English Heritage over the last few years. Most of these are already at some stage of publication, and many are on line - just do a Google search on "archaeological research frameworks".
Does this lack of interest on BAJR mean that these frameworks are not known about? Or irrelevant? Or not good enough?
* Bradley, R. 2006,'Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain', Antiquaries Journal, 86, 1-13
Digging the Dirt seems to be spot-on here:
Quote:quote:If excavation is alternatively conceived as research, albeit threat-led research, the cost of the work paid for by the developer can be monitored against the value of the results obtained. The polluter pays, and pays for something that benefits society as a whole, rather than their own needs to discharge a planning condition. Moralise that one. 'But Iâm creating jobs', they may argue, 'building houses, schools, roads, bridgesâ¦' Very true, and there are strong social and economic reasons for constructing this infrastructure. It is only by aligning 'commercial archaeology' with 'research archaeology' that the value of an excavation can be balanced against the decision to develop the site in the first place. The research value of the archaeology weighed against the social and economic value of the development.
The notion of corporate social responsibility is increasingly important and this is an area which could bring benefit to archaeology.
As to other contributions:
It is worth noting that the concepts of 'preservation in situ' and 'preservation by record' are increasingly regarded as inadequate - not just in the UK but elsewhere in Europe with developer-funded archaeology systems. The idea that a site can be 'preserved' in anything like an objective fashion by record is clearly nonsense - rather, such a process is actually archaeological research which will inevitably be subjective and which should, therefore, be done within the broader context of ongoing research. 'Preservation in situ' usually doesn't work either. Nevertheless these notions of 'preservation' are still current in UK planning guidance (PPG16) although the draft of PPG16's replacement eschews these terms (at least the one that I have seen).
There is certainly a gulf between 'academia' and 'commercial' archaeologies. But this is not unbridgeable, it just requires a lot of effort by both parties to engage. Bob's Roman site provides a good case study of the right sort of approach. See also Richard Bradley's paper in the Antiquaries Journal a couple of years ago.*
Finally, it is interesting (and worrying) that no-one has yet made reference to the various regional research frameworks that have been painstakingly produced by a mixture of commercial, curatorial and academic archaeologists under the aegis of English Heritage over the last few years. Most of these are already at some stage of publication, and many are on line - just do a Google search on "archaeological research frameworks".
Does this lack of interest on BAJR mean that these frameworks are not known about? Or irrelevant? Or not good enough?
* Bradley, R. 2006,'Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain', Antiquaries Journal, 86, 1-13