BAJR Wrote:Ok... this is great that data we never knew is collected. I just don't understand
a) what new info is gathered.
b) why volunteers are asked to collect it without training
c) this has been done on a regular basis.. I ask again... without dating... well.... lets see what comes out.
a) since the beginning of commercial archaeology there has been the talk (very little action) that ivory tower archaeologists will stop excavating and start synthesizing all the work that happens day in and day out with the other 99%. This might just be the first steps, or not. However, the idea behind the project is not to gather new information from excavation but to take the 100's and 1,000s (10,000s???) of reports we have, that lets face it get very little use, and try to make sense of them. Ideally, that means new information but it's archaeology, you don't actually know what you've got till it's all done and dusted, and being backfilled. Even then we usually end up with more questions than answers.
Maybe we think it won't turn up anything ahead of time. Maybe we think a king is buried in a car park. We don't know till we try.
b) It's the brave new world of grants. No longer are people going to be able to sit in an ivory tower and fiddle with whatever they like. The people fronting the bill, you know us taxpayers, want to see engagement and results that mean something to us. Crowd sourcing and volunteering is the new "it" thing in the world of grants. The problem is that while some of us have been doing this for decades now, even me at my relatively young age, they are learning for the first time. Think back to your first project that involved the public, did it go well? How about the first 50? How about the last time? I am guessing we are all learning something new each and every time. They just happen to be starting at step one.
Does the volunteer and engagement look ill formed and questionable, maybe. Would my first or your first attempt to get a wider public involved in such a project look different, maybe but probably not. What we are seeing here are the teething problems of a sub-sector of archaeology that has never had to really engage with people (with many great and notable exceptions, not stereotyping everyone). To keep with the teething metaphor, they are growing up but as with all experiences with growing they are going to fall down, fall off the bike and get a wicked hangover.
Unfortunately, your going to see a lot more projects that will try to engage people but fall flat. It will be many years before they train PhD students and future academics to be able to undertake this sort of work. Eventually they will get there but we will see many more projects like this. That being said those who have the experience can always help them along :face-confused: .