11th September 2008, 11:56 AM
diggingthedirt asks:
For me this is nub of the matter. In the UK the OASIS system is a good attempt to try and make available the results of commmercially-funded research.
And I use the word [u]research</u> deliberately.
For, regardless of how it is paid for, or under what circumstances it comes about, we must remember that all archaeological work is research. It is not just 'mitigation' or 'risk management' for someone else, it is potentially a contribution to the greater sum of human knowledge about past societies and where we are today. Holding onto this rather abstract and financially unquantifiable value is critical in our profession. Any new piece of archaeological work must be informed by previous and current work on sites of similar periods, types and locations. If we fail to do that for each and every project then we are not doing our jobs properly.
Having said that, in terms of the original topic, I agree that commercial archaeology must make a profit in order to maintain the ability to undertake such research. Such profit can be used to support training and staff development, new equipment and so-on.
However diggingthedirt is absolutely on the button to make the distinction he does:
I agree with him that the two are not mutually exclusive, but I do worry that many organisations invest in their staff's knowledge of the former at the expense of the latter. Training on 'how to do a desk-top' or 'health and safety' or 'financial control' is nowadays fairly common. Sending junior staff to period- or subject-specific conferences to learn something about the actual archaeology is still sadly not high on the list of priorities.
I am not sure why this is so, but for the profession to remain healthy it needs competence in both areas.
Quote:quote:how can we organise a structure to realise the potential of commercially generated information, and disseminate this widely as new knowledge about the past?
For me this is nub of the matter. In the UK the OASIS system is a good attempt to try and make available the results of commmercially-funded research.
And I use the word [u]research</u> deliberately.
For, regardless of how it is paid for, or under what circumstances it comes about, we must remember that all archaeological work is research. It is not just 'mitigation' or 'risk management' for someone else, it is potentially a contribution to the greater sum of human knowledge about past societies and where we are today. Holding onto this rather abstract and financially unquantifiable value is critical in our profession. Any new piece of archaeological work must be informed by previous and current work on sites of similar periods, types and locations. If we fail to do that for each and every project then we are not doing our jobs properly.
Having said that, in terms of the original topic, I agree that commercial archaeology must make a profit in order to maintain the ability to undertake such research. Such profit can be used to support training and staff development, new equipment and so-on.
However diggingthedirt is absolutely on the button to make the distinction he does:
Quote:quote: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).
I agree with him that the two are not mutually exclusive, but I do worry that many organisations invest in their staff's knowledge of the former at the expense of the latter. Training on 'how to do a desk-top' or 'health and safety' or 'financial control' is nowadays fairly common. Sending junior staff to period- or subject-specific conferences to learn something about the actual archaeology is still sadly not high on the list of priorities.
I am not sure why this is so, but for the profession to remain healthy it needs competence in both areas.