11th September 2008, 01:10 AM
Ok, we've established that the archaeological market is an artificial creation, and you make the point that other environmental fields practice perfectly adequately in an equally artificial market. I am assuming from this that you think the environmental sector also operates at an appropriately high standard (according to internationally agreed guidelines). In other words, there are no quality issues in the provision of these services in a commercially profitable way. You may be right. I'll look into it.
My concern in relation to profitability in the archaeological sector is with how the commercial framework affects the methodology employed and the quality of the results produced. You refer to the old 70's chestwig of "why should I fund your hobby?"
This attitude still remains latent amongst those who hold the purse strings, and jobs are won or lost primarily on cost, despite rhetoric to the contrary. I take on board everything said so far regarding good business practice, but this 'moral imperative' can only go so far. Quality management of archaeology (managing a programme of archaeological work on time and budget) is not the same thing as quality archaeology (generating new secure knowledge of the past). The two things are far from mutually exclusive, but as a sector we have become very good at the former (evaluation, mitigation, resolution â all fluent engineer) â but unfortunately quite poor at the latter.
As I mentioned before, some would say this doesn't matter: it's not our remit - leave that to the universities. This too stems from the very premise of the statutory/planning regime, which, as you rightly point out, is based on the idea that the material remains of the past have a value independent of our engagement with it. You see this as a positive, a broad social agreement that the past is good and the polluter must pay, whether they like it or not. Well yes of course, but that's an old battle and the debates moved on. It's not a question of whether or not we value the past, it's how we value it that counts. Many managers would find it easier to put a time-costed cash value on a site than explain to a range of different audiences what the feck it means. A wealth generating, as opposed to a knowledge generating framework. I just think we can do it better.
My concern in relation to profitability in the archaeological sector is with how the commercial framework affects the methodology employed and the quality of the results produced. You refer to the old 70's chestwig of "why should I fund your hobby?"
This attitude still remains latent amongst those who hold the purse strings, and jobs are won or lost primarily on cost, despite rhetoric to the contrary. I take on board everything said so far regarding good business practice, but this 'moral imperative' can only go so far. Quality management of archaeology (managing a programme of archaeological work on time and budget) is not the same thing as quality archaeology (generating new secure knowledge of the past). The two things are far from mutually exclusive, but as a sector we have become very good at the former (evaluation, mitigation, resolution â all fluent engineer) â but unfortunately quite poor at the latter.
As I mentioned before, some would say this doesn't matter: it's not our remit - leave that to the universities. This too stems from the very premise of the statutory/planning regime, which, as you rightly point out, is based on the idea that the material remains of the past have a value independent of our engagement with it. You see this as a positive, a broad social agreement that the past is good and the polluter must pay, whether they like it or not. Well yes of course, but that's an old battle and the debates moved on. It's not a question of whether or not we value the past, it's how we value it that counts. Many managers would find it easier to put a time-costed cash value on a site than explain to a range of different audiences what the feck it means. A wealth generating, as opposed to a knowledge generating framework. I just think we can do it better.