Volunteers in commercial archaeology

[jeffmo]

Why would we want to 8-)

In all seriousness, voluntary archaeologists have the chance to learn to know an area over a longer period of time, various weather conditions in a way that enables us to really know about the area in which we carry out fieldwork.

In addition we are often aware of areas that seem ripe for future development, even before the big deveopers do. To this effect we can carry out small scale evaluations which if fed back into the SMR/HER can help to decide that more extensive archaeological work is required, thus helping to create jobs for the `pros'.

So, it would be nice if we were responsible for finding a site in the first place if we could be invited to take part on any further larger scale work that is carried out.

IMHO

Jeff

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by jeffmo

Why would we want to 8-)

In all seriousness, voluntary archaeologists have the chance to learn to know an area over a longer period of time, various weather conditions in a way that enables us to really know about the area in which we carry out fieldwork.

In addition we are often aware of areas that seem ripe for future development, even before the big deveopers do. To this effect we can carry out small scale evaluations which if fed back into the SMR/HER can help to decide that more extensive archaeological work is required, thus helping to create jobs for the `pros'.

So, it would be nice if we were responsible for finding a site in the first place if we could be invited to take part on any further larger scale work that is carried out.

IMHO

Jeff

But,if your going to do that, you might as well set yourself up as a professional firm of archaeologists, anyway. [:p]

[beamo]

Invisible wrote:

If however we are talking about an interested "member of the public" then the kind of scenario outlined by Hosty comes into play, an outreach or public particpation programme. I see this as a totally different kettle of fish and not what I would call commercial archaeology, even if run by a commercial/professional unit and maybe even in advance of development (in which case an enlightened client will be required).

I see this as the way in which we should be going. Where possible (and this is likely to be the great minority of commercial projects) a programme of outreach should be developed and implemented. I am currently dealing with two very large urban sites where the coincidence of sympathetic developers / curators have allowed me (the consultant) to propose that part of the budget for archaeological work should be set aside for outreach. This is to include on-site participation as well as on and off site information exchange. The way in which this is done on a commercial projects has to conform with the IFA policy on The Use of Volunteers and Students on Archaeological Projects. Essentially the tender documents are configured so that certain fixed pieces of archaeological work are clearly defined and can be costed on a commercial basis - this allows for comparison between contractors and allows the client to get an general idea of the likely cost. Tenderers are also asked to propose a detailed programme of outreach, including previous experience in such matters. It may well be that in the case of tenderers being finely matched in other ways, the final choice comes down to who has the best-looking programme of outreach.

Beamo

[mercenary]

I very recently had an argument about a very big urban project that has a large public archaeology component planned, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but also a for a fee training excavation, which I don't. Whatever the economics of the situation I feel that the developer is being subsidised in some way.

[beamo]

Merc

What is meant by a 'fee training excavation' ?


Beamo

[Digger]

If the job Merc mentioned is the one I'm thinking of- Field school situation where somepeople pay to dig and be trained.

[mercenary]

Sorry, yes spot on digger. (sure it didn't look that way when I typed it[:I])

[beamo]

Merc

I think that I would probably have to agree that it sounds a bit odd to have a site where a developer is paying for archaeological work to be undertaken as part of the planning consent regime, and yet for people working on the excavation having to pay to be trained.

I have never really considered setting up something in this way, and it may actually be possible to structure the proposal in such a way that everyone seems to be benefitting - but the initial response is to be suspicious that some form of subsidy is creeping in.

Beamo

[the invisible man]

Quite. Which is why this will never be the norm - this is very much a horses for courses situation. Your everyday PPG commercial site is not going to be appropriate for public participation programmes, and in any case there aren't THAT many members of the public with the spare time (and money).

There may be a case for university/LA/unit (or any combination thereof) collaboration on appropriate sites. An example might be the Birkbeck/MoLAS training excavations, or perhaps the YAT projects. I don't see it working ona supermarket site though.

Overall I'd be more anxious to see some dialogue and excahange of, well everything really, between the academic and commercial sectors. Both have faults, both have much to offer.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Sniffer]

We allow contribution from people 'supernumerary to establishment' which means we do all the required work, and they are permitted to do appropriate work alongside, in small numbers, providing there's good reason. Local societies are far from thick in my view and can often add valuable insight. We used some detectorists for backfill scanning. We had the equipment and manpower to do it ourselves, but instead used that manpower to supervise and guide the volunteers. The part of our standard terms is that we will not obtain pecuniary advantage through the use of our commitment to education. Some wordy stuff like that.

If I express an opinion, shoot the boss. He's a bad man.