11th September 2008, 04:41 PM
Posted by diggingthedirt:
There certainly are weaknesses and quality problems, but the long-term trend is one of improvement, both in archaeology and across the board.
In relation to more general archaeological work, I have commissioned and monitored archaeological fieldwork of every kind over a 15-year period, all of it commercial. The units have included charities, university-based units, council-based units and private companies. Generally speaking, the university-based units have had the most academic focus in their approach, but that hasn't necessarily translated into higher quality. The best quality overall, defined in purely archaeological terms, has come from a specific unit that is a private company, set-up, owned and run by two partners.
It is specifically because I am aware of quality problems that I see consultants like myself having a valuable role to play in promoting quality work. However, I also worked for a long time as a field archaeologist, mostly before archaeology was commercialised, and I have also looked at a lot of relevant literature. All I can say is that the quality and quantity of rescue/salvage work done in that era were far below current standards. Most people's rosy-tinted view of that era is based on research excavations, not on rescue work.
That improvement in both the quality and the quantity of archaeological is derived mainly from the vastly increased resources that became available after PPG16, as a result of developer funding. Developer funding is the root source of the commercialisation of archaeology and the idea that it can be done for a profit.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote: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 previous posts made no comment at all about quality, but as it happens, I have researched the quality of both archaeological work and other environmental work, and read a lot of other research about it, at least in relation to the relatively limited field of EIA. Also, my job involves managing/coordinating not just archaeologists but a wide range of environmental specialists, including reviewing/editing reports from all those specialists.
There certainly are weaknesses and quality problems, but the long-term trend is one of improvement, both in archaeology and across the board.
In relation to more general archaeological work, I have commissioned and monitored archaeological fieldwork of every kind over a 15-year period, all of it commercial. The units have included charities, university-based units, council-based units and private companies. Generally speaking, the university-based units have had the most academic focus in their approach, but that hasn't necessarily translated into higher quality. The best quality overall, defined in purely archaeological terms, has come from a specific unit that is a private company, set-up, owned and run by two partners.
It is specifically because I am aware of quality problems that I see consultants like myself having a valuable role to play in promoting quality work. However, I also worked for a long time as a field archaeologist, mostly before archaeology was commercialised, and I have also looked at a lot of relevant literature. All I can say is that the quality and quantity of rescue/salvage work done in that era were far below current standards. Most people's rosy-tinted view of that era is based on research excavations, not on rescue work.
That improvement in both the quality and the quantity of archaeological is derived mainly from the vastly increased resources that became available after PPG16, as a result of developer funding. Developer funding is the root source of the commercialisation of archaeology and the idea that it can be done for a profit.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished