Research be seen as integral to development excavation.

[BAJR]

York Archaeological Trust of course

And I certainly hope our Heritage Reforms bleedin go in the right direction.

I agree it is ambitious by teh way, but I do think that its a brave move that they have an organic research framework... but its down to clever organisation... keep it simple is my motto. So finger crossed.

[chiz]

[FONT=&quot]Cotswold do indeed have an academic panel (http://www.cotswoldarch.org.uk/about.htm), and when at MoLA we regularly used to use academic advisors chosen for specific projects to help shape the analysis and publication process and to comment on the draft texts. I imagine this is fairly common practice with most units? Also as stated above most National/Period/local society journals usually send off papers for comment to someone suitable before publishing.

Personally from my experience at several units I don't really see that there is a lack of research in commercial archaeology, certainly not in the projects that I have been involved with. We have clearly stated research aims linked to local/regional research frameworks and which we develop and evolve from eval to site to assessment according to the results.

I think as TimberWolf pointed out above that the difference between us and academic/local society/research digs is that they predominantly only dig at known sites where they have a good idea what they will find, so there will usually always be something more to say than on a 50 trench sterile eval. It does gets quite tedious how every university dig is always the earliest/biggest/latest....

We don't get to choose where we dig and have to be able to deal with a far wider range of archaeology. This may mean we are jacks of all trades, rather than masters of paleolithic copralites but our role is to preserve by record, assess the results and then carry out appropriate analysis and dissemination. If this needs specialist input, research and advice we seek it and act on it, whether that is in the form of getting in a specialist to do micromorph analysis, or getting a reading list off an academic, or even getting an external specialist to co-write the publication. It will always be possible to do more research on our sites, but we go quite a long way, providing good, clear data for others to mine for their own research.[/FONT]

[Dinosaur]

Chiz - go along with pretty much all of that, glad to hear that these are widespread practices even if certainly not universal :face-approve:

However, I've had a few conversations with people running 'research' excavations who've been painfully ignorant of archaeology in the surrounding area, even just the other side of the hedge - an awful lot of academics still seem to regard their pet summer dig as an isolated spot on the map whose only significant context (in their universe) is the half dozen similar published sites dug in the 1950s at the other end of the country.....clearly parts of academia still don't regard commercial 'grey' output, and the people producing it, as worthy of their attention, and until they do all this cooperation etc ain't gonna work, shame, I'm all for it (as long as someone else does the site tours for the 8-year olds, still haven't mastered that yet....)

[GnomeKing]

it is hard to blag 8 year-olds - they're too canny....

many professionals are Painfully unaware of the limits of their knowledge, let alone the local archaeology of where they happen to be working...they are often unable to provide rationale grounds for their investigations, are unreflexive in approach, and this shows in mountains of self-referential lacklustre paperwork - a deeply unappetising grey literature porridge, sitting heavily for many hours, hard to digest, and sapped of intellectual nutrients.

[chiz]

a deeply unappetising grey literature porridge, sitting heavily for many hours, hard to digest, and sapped of intellectual nutrients.

I find that the underlying systemic fault of a lot of grey literature is due to the heavily structured format in which we are expected to write our reports rather than what we are actually writing about. At the level of most grey literature (eval reports) we are obviously required to not over-egg our puddings and to write in simple clear terms so that someone else (curator) can make decisions based on the evidence. The evidence needs to be stated in a clear and succinct manner. An eval report is not a phd thesis and so will not be as full of 'intellectual nutrients'. It will be full of demonstrable evidence though I hope. We write grey literature to the level that is required by the evidence we have found, and in the format required by the curatorial system we work in.

You could of course take exactly the same findings and, freed from the limitations of the curatorial 'system', write an academically peer-reviewed fantastically interesting account of multi-period settlement and trade etc etc etc. But it would likely be just that: fantastical.

[Dinosaur]

Well said - however I usually try to stick something in the discussion section along the lines of 'all this could conceivably indicate this, based (indirectly) on this evidence' if only as a prompt to any future investigator (probably the b******s who then undercut us for the excavation phase) who might not have as much local knowledge - suspect Vulpes will be appalled but none of the local curators around here seem to mind.... :face-stir:

[BAJR]

Although I tend to agree with Chiz, that the heavily structured format is to blame, - who is it that created it? I for one can't help but add the spice, the personality to my reports, that provide both the information required by the curator AND the "THats interesting" for teh client.

Good one Dino!:face-approve:

[vulpes]

I'm not at all appalled by that Dinosaur, and I'm not sure that I should be. I'm also not too concerned that eval reports may be boring, or mechanistic, as Chiz et al point out they're done for a set purpose (and to a price point). From my contracting experience I'm also quite sure that the majority of clients (developers) couldn't give a monkeys about the 'that's interesting' that you allude to BAJR, although that aspect would be of concern to a curator trying to weigh up significance in terms of PPS5. To go back to the 'heavily structured' format, it is (as Chiz points out) horses for courses and has it roots in the various standards IfA, MAP2 etc. In it's place I don't see it as a great problem as it at least ensure that the 'important' stuff is in there and doesn't prevent the writer from adding extra interpretation / information above the minimum. That said I have sent excavation reports back on occasion because they are completely overwritten / theorised. There is a balance to be struck between the information retrieved and the level of inference appropriate.

[vulpes]

also, I'm not quite sure where some of you get the idea that well written, engaging archaeology is the preserve of academia. Plenty of turgid prose drops from the pens of many a PhD. Given the constraints in which we work, the commercial/development led sector has much to be proud of and, as such, a strong foundation on which to address the new demands of PPS5. Additionally, by sheer dint of numbers and outside the far reaches of the Palaeolithic, let's not forget that most archaeology in the UK is development led. As such our role in shaping the direction of research is crucial, as are research agenda.

[BAJR]

the majority of clients (developers) couldn't give a monkeys about the 'that's interesting' that you allude to BAJR, although that aspect would be of concern to a curator trying to weigh up significance in terms of PPS5.

I have found different. I have to say, based on the including this element, and taking the time to talk to them as well. A luxury that pays off, as they are paying for it- and a) want the bleedin condition signed off, and b) often do have an interest... sometimes not, sometimes yes.

It does come back to the point of archaeology... if people are willing to admit it is not really archaeology per ce... that it is temporal contamination, and a development control archaeologist is really just signing off the acceptable removal of said contamination according to a set list of criteria (IfA Guidelines, MAP2 etc) with no more interest but with similar care than if they were in charge of the distribution of gritter lorries on a council road network and this side of 'archaeology' has only some cross over into archaeology which the public know, enjoy and support.

It is also perfectly easy to separate within the report, the required sections for the Curator and the additional discussion and background that can be of great interest to the client. (as it happens, my last developer client has ordered further copies of the report in order to give them to the new house owners. - Why.... because it was interesting... gasp... able to meet the requirements of the curatorial dept. and interest the client. - so it is possible)

You are quite right though about the balance... usually though it is the bare minimum to be honest... time is money... minimum = maximum profit!