The future of commercial archaeology from a digger's point of view

[overseas]

You may, or may not, need local knowledge to dig a site effectively. You do, to write it up, unless site reports are limited to simple stratigraphic, physical and structural descriptions. Detailed contextual knowledge enables a site report to propose, with greater effectiveness, the significance of the archaeology under investigation.

[kevin wooldridge]

You may, or may not, need local knowledge to dig a site effectively. You do, to write it up, unless site reports are limited to simple stratigraphic, physical and structural descriptions. Detailed contextual knowledge enables a site report to propose, with greater effectiveness, the significance of the archaeology under investigation.

One of the ironies of UK archaeology and its relationship to the planning system is that the significance of potential archaeological deposits is discussed at great detail in assessment and evaluation reports often well before a trowel is lifted in serious anger on the site in question. I at least can understand the reluctance of project sponsors to see too much time spent rehashing those arguements in the final report when they have already been well aired.....

I think one of the answers would be a GIS based report structure for archaeological reporting where earlier documents can be seen as an integral part of a finished report and not just part of the archive (where conclusions/significance discussions can be updated rather than rehashed).... such a system would be cheaper and more efficient than the present paper based reporting model and more widely accessible!!. I can see a potential for such a system . A good example is the way that Oxford Archaeology organise their archaeological library - see disscusion elsewhere on BAJR - and that seems three quarters of the way to that aim already...

[FedUp]

Why do you need local knowledge to write up a site? What is the local information in evaluations or DBA's for? I'm confused, do people no longer read?

[Dinosaur]

I'm constantly being handicapped when writing DBAs on areas I know really well in having strong suspicions that stuff's going to be there without any actual evidence, and hence am unable to mention it except in the vaguest possible way in the document - it's a lot easier finding stuff on site, particularly nasty messy watching briefs, if you already have a pretty good idea of what you're looking for....also I can think of a number of jobs around here that have been totally b***sed up by outside units not bothering to check what the real natural was supposed to look like, like a certain unit who missed out on over a metre of stratified multi-phase Roman settlement with all the goodies to play with (which of course meant more for us to play with.....). Can also think of a number of reports where 'natural' has quite clearly been archaeology just from the description to anyone who knows the locale - it's enough to make you tear your hair out (if I still had any, of course) !

[FedUp]

So are you saying you use your spider sense in writing DBA's? I think that missing archaeology is a reflection of the standard of work of the units? In which case they can also balls it up on their own turf? What's the point of having a giant yellow mechanical spade and not digging a giant hole just to make sure of something? Everyone like digging big holes! Overseas seemed to be making the point that sites aren't being tied in to known examples of local archaeology - is that not just shoddy report writing? I'm all for local units digging local archaeology, it would at least mean that people could dig in their own locality and not sacrifice a life to the constant re-locations imposed by the job, but it's never going to happen!

[Dinosaur]

Surprising how often I turn out to be right though

[FedUp]

Ha ha that's not your spider sense tingling! That's just your age

[Dirty Bird]

:face-approve:We here, would like to agree with our learned colleague's sentiments wholeheartedly. We are all well and truely annoyed. The IFA would not be all that much use in the role of regulartor and the setting of good standards. We think that BAJR would be more suited to this position as more people feel that they can relate to the organisation and it's members better. WE NEED BETTER PAY! Just thought we'd add that in.
TA!

[Dinosaur]

Can go along with that - but cutting out all the ludicrous travel expenses etc would be better for everyone (and to some extent help the income issue), diggers, units, the environment......frankly I can c**k-up my own local sites just as well as a unit from 200 miles away....:face-stir:

[trainedchimp]

I'd just like to say the the worst case I've ever seen of writing a site off despite strong evidence that it was really quite important was a local unit (local authority based), whose 'close relationship' with the curators left a potentially interesting site to be trashed, and the most flagrant case of diggers not spotting natural (despite even having the evaluation report for an adjacent site that noted the presence of over a metre of colluvium overlying natural) was a local unit based all of 15 miles down the road, who'd dug at least 10 sites that year within a kilometre of the site. I'd tend to think that claiming local knowledge as a help to quality on individual jobs is usually a smokescreen for special pleading - it's what they then do with the local knowledge to add value in outreach and community work, or how they use it to work more efficiently that would count in my book. If a unit can afford to move diggers 100 miles and put them up and still undercut a local unit, the locals are missing a trick... (or would that be employing staff rather than using 'self-employed' subbies...)

The worst dba I've ever seen was indeed produced by a consultancy over 150 miles distant, but to be fair, work I've seen by them in their back yard was equally awful.