4th April 2010, 08:48 PM
Hows about this......
The responsibility for standards falls squarely at the feet of Curatorial Archaeologists in the guise of County or City (etc) Mounties. Yet not once in my career have I seen or even heard of a curator monitoring site records at the point of retrieval. As commercial pressures increase, exponentially- the standards of data retrieval and recording slide ever further into the realms of absurdity. I have said this before but here goes anyway.....
PPG16 (admittedly now superceded) uses the word "compromise" only once and in the final paragraph. Commercial archaeologists are expected to "compromise" on an almost daily basis in the field and that, comes after (or is a direct consequence) of a string of compromises made in the Project Design/Method Statement/ Tendering phase. I think what I am trying to say is this- archaeologists can do so much more for the finite resource given the time to do it. As an aside....there are still plenty of highly skilled field archaeologists out there who take a great deal of pride in their work and still maintain high standards of data retrieval and recording despite imposed time constraints. If we are to accept and champion the maxim that we are to "preserve by record", then it is my view that those records should by default be exemplary and without compromise. Simply because those records ARE our compromise and the only tangible remains of the finite resource.
Therefore, field archaeologists should be exactly that and no less. I have been lucky enough to have accepted responsibility for the management of sites and their subsequent publishing and it has to be said that once a field archaeologist understands the requirement for quality,accurate and relevent data retrieval and recording, that field archaeologist becomes far more competent in the field. As the majority of field staff are not given the opportunity to play a part in the post-excavation analysis and subsequent publication of sites, a profound grasp of field recording requirements is sadly, an uncommon currency today.
That of course does not excuse supervisory staff (of any echelon) from their duty in monitoring (if not pro-actively setting) standards of retrieval and recording in the field. On the vast majority of commercial projects, the finite resource can only ever be excavated (destroyed) once and as such, the quality of retrieval and recording is doubly of paramount importance.
So what are the causitive agents of less than professional field practise today? Commercial pressures? Inadequate University training? Inadequate in-sector training? Innefective monitoring? Or could it be that the value placed upon "preservation by record" is in itself now compromised beyond recognition?:face-huh:
The responsibility for standards falls squarely at the feet of Curatorial Archaeologists in the guise of County or City (etc) Mounties. Yet not once in my career have I seen or even heard of a curator monitoring site records at the point of retrieval. As commercial pressures increase, exponentially- the standards of data retrieval and recording slide ever further into the realms of absurdity. I have said this before but here goes anyway.....
PPG16 (admittedly now superceded) uses the word "compromise" only once and in the final paragraph. Commercial archaeologists are expected to "compromise" on an almost daily basis in the field and that, comes after (or is a direct consequence) of a string of compromises made in the Project Design/Method Statement/ Tendering phase. I think what I am trying to say is this- archaeologists can do so much more for the finite resource given the time to do it. As an aside....there are still plenty of highly skilled field archaeologists out there who take a great deal of pride in their work and still maintain high standards of data retrieval and recording despite imposed time constraints. If we are to accept and champion the maxim that we are to "preserve by record", then it is my view that those records should by default be exemplary and without compromise. Simply because those records ARE our compromise and the only tangible remains of the finite resource.
Therefore, field archaeologists should be exactly that and no less. I have been lucky enough to have accepted responsibility for the management of sites and their subsequent publishing and it has to be said that once a field archaeologist understands the requirement for quality,accurate and relevent data retrieval and recording, that field archaeologist becomes far more competent in the field. As the majority of field staff are not given the opportunity to play a part in the post-excavation analysis and subsequent publication of sites, a profound grasp of field recording requirements is sadly, an uncommon currency today.
That of course does not excuse supervisory staff (of any echelon) from their duty in monitoring (if not pro-actively setting) standards of retrieval and recording in the field. On the vast majority of commercial projects, the finite resource can only ever be excavated (destroyed) once and as such, the quality of retrieval and recording is doubly of paramount importance.
So what are the causitive agents of less than professional field practise today? Commercial pressures? Inadequate University training? Inadequate in-sector training? Innefective monitoring? Or could it be that the value placed upon "preservation by record" is in itself now compromised beyond recognition?:face-huh: