Research in commercial archaeology

[RedEarth]

I may have accidently started this topic so I suppose I should add my tuppenceworth.

My original query wasn't so much 'should developers pay for research?' because of course they should and have to in order for the results of work to say anything at all. 'Grey literature' would be a very apt term if all the reports simply described features mathematically without any interpretation. The issue (if that's not too strong a word) was the term 'research', which is a bit too open-ended and would probably terrify a lot of developers. Anyway, that isn't really a major problem.

The bigger point is should commercial archaeologists be attempting to carry out large amounts of research in areas where other people (academics in particular) have spent years? The example of medieval towns is perfect, where work might have been done piecemeal,perhaps over several decades with little bits of work published here and there when a larger overview done by someone with the time and resources would be more useful. There seems, to use the vomit-inducing expression, to be a lack of 'joined up thinking' in many cases. This is partially caused by work being carried out in isolation, but also because academics spend so much of their flipping time abroad in lovely sunny climes (erm, like Jordan). A regular review of what has been done would help. Are such things carried out? EH perhaps? I don't want to keep sounding like I'm bashing academics but we talk about research and there seems to be two different worlds.

[chiz]

lets throw another one in...

why should a university 'research' project, with a few hundred quid of funds, a 'director'(!) with limited field experience, a couple of second year supervisors, and a bunch of students, old dears and a plane table, get permission to dig up a abbey/castle/villa that is a SAM and is not threatened by anything other than time. Just because they write a research proposal -they don't have funding/skills etc, the sites never get written up, etc etc. There is precious little preservation by record with that scenario (other, competent research scenarios are available...). But its called serious academic research. Whereas I can't remove that bit of pottery from the section because its 'not going to be trashed', and I am a 'commercial' archaeologist who doesn't do proper research, and is looked down on by all these failed archaeologists who couldn't work out one end of matrix from the other...

If we cant dig the threatened sites properly, then why are we allowing people to trash un-threatened sites in the name of research/tv. Why the f*** are we digging up stonehenge and durrington walls if we cant sort out a decent framework for the stuff that is getting trashed?

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by bob

lets throw another one in...

I hadn't intnded this to become an 'us against them debate' but while we're at it... Perhaps this needs another thread, but I was surprised so few commercial archaeologists reacted to the article in British Archaeology, which could have been read as 'I'm from Oxford University for for fricks sake, how dare these oiks dig next to my site without my permission and without immediately giving me unfettered access to their results'. I'm paraphrasing of course, but Bob's comments are spot on. Why do we have to spend ages coming up with research aims costed on a shoestring because of the risk of being undercut, when any undergrad can put together a proposal with minimal experience.

Ultimately it doesn't matter who is doing the work or research as long as they produce something decent at the end, but it is a further part of the problem for commercial companies. The time spent writing up large projects is time not spent winning new ones and making much needed cold hard cash. Academics in the mean time get funding for research without particularly having to worry about where it comes from (my somewhat simplistic understanding of the situation, sorry), and then take 20 years to publish it without anyone suggesting that they might be fired as a result.

What would be nice would be a bit more working together.

[1man1desk]

I think this discussion is still getting a bit confused by different understandings of the word 'research'.

I, as a consultant, sometimes spend the client's money on commissioning a piece of archaeological fieldwork - lets say, for argument, it is an excavation within a small medieval town.

When the archaeological contractor sends me their report, I expect them not just to describe what they found but to place it in its local, regional and national context and interpret it in that context. That means they will have to show a good understanding of the archaeology of that town, based on having read up the relevant literature (published and grey), which should be properly referenced. This is not research - it is essential information forming part of the 'preservation by record'. The degree of detail that they need to go into in doing this does, of course, vary according to the nature and location of the site.

However, the report and its interpretative sections should focus on the site under investigation. In other words, all that background information should be used to get the most out of the excavated evidence. If the report actually focusses mainly on wider research questions, rather than on interpreting the actual site, then we are starting to stray into research, although that is only likely to be a problem if it has put the price up.

However, the main research issue is not to do with reporting at all, but to do with the nature and scope of investigation. However frustrating for us as archaeologists, we cannot oblige developers to pay for investigations that are not focused on mitigating the impact of development. That may mean we don't get the chance to address our research questions as fully as we would like, but that is our problem, not the developer's. Just like any other discipline, if we want to do research, we should look for sources of research funding.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[chiz]

In reply to Red Earth:
quote: but I was surprised so few commercial archaeologists reacted to the article in British Archaeology, which could have been read as 'I'm from Oxford University for for fricks sake, how dare these oiks dig next to my site without my permission and without immediately giving me unfettered access to their results'.

probably because we don't read it?

We recently gave access to an academic to the findings on a site of mine that was in the process of being written up. The findings on that site change the history of Roman Britain. We did it in the knowledge that our 'research' ideas and conclusions would be scooped by the academic, but he referenced us and our ideas properly and it was for a festscrift for someone we as a profession owe a lot to, so we didn't mind at all. And it acts as a good advert for our monograph. We could have said 'no, we're publishing this next year, wait and see what we say', but to us its more important to get the stuff out there in a good format to the widest audience. And we vindicated the theories of one of the greatest Romanists ever.

I'm not anti-academic, I was merely trying to point out the ironies of the (academic) research vs (commercial) mitigation of threat debate.I use the term professional as doing the job properly. There are several commercial units I think of as being totally amateur!

To one man one desk, you invite discussion on a topic and then issue a statement. Then when we discuss it you issue a new statement saying we are getting confused about the topic! We are discussing the topic, and if you read my previous posts you'll see that I do understand the differences and the nuances in it all. I happen to be able to write proper academic research under the conditions imposed to discharge the conditions, but then I am lucky. Most of the time people don't have that opportunity, a lot of the time because the sites aren't interesting enough to hang real research off of.

Regarding whether local archaeologists/academics have 'rights' to an area, of course we should respect prior work, but there is a responsibility to go and publish it if offered the opportunity. I know of at least one local archaeologist who always whinges if someone digs in his patch, but when EH approached him and offered him cash to write up all his sites he ran a mile. As far as we can guess, the archive is lost, and the sites were not dug properly. Then there are the stories of a very well established archaeologist -an academic- burning context sheets after publication so no-one can re-interpret his site.
There is plenty of money if you want to do synthetic research, don't get miffed if you don't bother to try and get it. In my experience commercial units almost always want to use the local/academic knowledge as it saves money and time. Commercial expertise in areas like project management and design, access to specialists, GIS and CAD work can make a huge difference as well to the amateur or academic.

We have to work together, but we need to see research not as being non-PPG16 work, but being quality work. Its like the amateur/professional thing above.

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk

I think this discussion is still getting a bit confused by different understandings of the word 'research'.

Sorry, you're absolutely right. Although I would say that it is the use of the term 'research' that causes the problem. I agree that for a small site or a post-ex assessment report 'research' in terms of the local context is necessary. But when it comes to post-ex analysis and publication, the scope for 'research' is a bit more endless. How far can you justify taking your investigations to find comparitive material/types of site? The other end of the country? If looking at industrial sites one could justify looking at examples from all over the world in the right circumstances. The point remains that the developer is paying for something extremely intangible and difficult to quantify (assume that is not just two ways of saying the same thing!)

As for Bob's points - it's great when everyone can work together, and in many cases it does happen to everyone's benefit as you point out, so it's not all bad. But, as you also state, there are guidelines and means of doing things in commercial archaeology that no academic would put up with, and some do have some explaining to do with regard to certain sites. As for the article in BA. Some commercial archaeologists do read it - I went out and bought a copy because I thought that particular article might be relevent to what I do.

This thread has frayed a little, anyone care to sort it out!

[andy.bicket]

Hmmm...

1) Should we define "research" as work undertaken to answer a specific question(s), culminating in publication? Be that peer-reviewed journals, edited monographs (often with a reliance on the grey literature) etc.

2) The contextual research necessary for site reports/assessments etc is different...it's still research but I can't just now think, of a suitable term that does the amount of effort justice. Is this kind of work generally destined for the grey literature with a similar aim for every site, focussed upon site context. I'm not particularly familiar with 2), so please rip this to pieces

Cheers,

Andy

[diggingthedirt]

I'll step up. This for 1man1desk, with thanks for starting the thread.

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
The point, therefore, of your 'preservation by record' operation is not to do research, but to replace physical evidence in the ground with a record of that evidence, making sure that it remains available to future researchers.

This would be a very traditional viewpoint, but is by no means the only way to conceive of archaeological fieldwork. In the traditional view, the idea of the 'archaeological record' and the concept of 'preservation by record' are seen as equivalent. The drawings, context sheets and notes of the individual excavator are considered impartial and objective. But all manner of interpretive decisions are made on site that informs the final record, and different perspectives will release different data from the ground. If these decisions aren't undertaken in a systematic, inquisitive fashion, and these perspectives not articulated in a self-critical way, we are failing in our primary goal of mitigating what you describe as archaeological impact:

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
You could define the archaeological impact of development as follows:
'Damage to physical evidence of the past that would otherwise be available for future archaeological research, or for the enjoyment of their heritage by members of the public'.

It's not just the developer who 'damages' the physical evidence for the past. The process of excavation is itself destruction - the consolation being that this is managed and overseen by an expert witness. The scale of that damage and ultimate loss will depend on the significance of the site, but no matter how significant the loss, the value of the excavation can only be measured in terms of the research issues addressed, the knowledge produced and whether or not this is disseminated to a wider audience. Which you acknowledge without pursuing:

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
An understanding of research issues is therefore crucial at DBA and evaluation stage, and in designing and reporting on your mitigation works…. You cannot therefore define the significance of an impact unless you first understand the potential importance of the affected remains for research.

In this version, once research issues are clearly defined, the cost of an excavation can be monitored against the percentage of the deposits cleared. This works well if you assume that 'preservation by record' does exactly what it says on the tin. But this is not necessarily the case, and left unchecked, this falls foul of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Knowing in advance our linear ditches are Iron Age in date, we may choose to focus our slots on the terminus of all ditches, because this is where ritual deposits are placed. The capacity to find out anything new and startling is dramatically reduced.

If excavation is alternatively conceived as research, albeit threat-led research, the cost of the work paid for by the developer can be monitored against the value of the results obtained. The polluter pays, and pays for something that benefits society as a whole, rather than their own needs to discharge a planning condition. Moralise that one. 'But I’m creating jobs', they may argue, 'building houses, schools, roads, bridges…' Very true, and there are strong social and economic reasons for constructing this infrastructure. It is only by aligning 'commercial archaeology' with 'research archaeology' that the value of an excavation can be balanced against the decision to develop the site in the first place. The research value of the archaeology weighed against the social and economic value of the development.

[chiz]

to quote diggingthedirt:
'If excavation is alternatively conceived as research, albeit threat-led research, the cost of the work paid for by the developer can be monitored against the value of the results obtained. The polluter pays, and pays for something that benefits society as a whole, rather than their own needs to discharge a planning condition. Moralise that one. 'But I’m creating jobs', they may argue, 'building houses, schools, roads, bridges…' Very true, and there are strong social and economic reasons for constructing this infrastructure. It is only by aligning 'commercial archaeology' with 'research archaeology' that the value of an excavation can be balanced against the decision to develop the site in the first place. The research value of the archaeology weighed against the social and economic value of the development.'

quite.
since there appears to be different definitions of research being used (and apologies if my trying to highlight some incongruities dragged the topic all over the place) I'd like to see what you all think the following is as under 1m1u's definition we maybe shouldn't have done half of what we did:
Major site excavated in City of London, alongside all the normal kind of strat, we discover a previously unknown Roman fort. Ditches, rampart with timber lacework, turrets, kitchen, granaries, latrine, armour -quite nice. Dating is immediately post-Boudiccan revolt. Now alongside the normal assessment and analysis we have to research Roman forts in NW europe for comparitors (nearest structural comparison is in the Rhine area) so we can discuss the remains we have. Also research which units are where in the period in question, and what the political situation was at the time. We also discover during assessment that it throws the conjectured road system out for the whole of the eastern part of the city, so do more research to fix this as best we can. We need to establish the size and plan of the fort so check through published reports and unpublished archives looking for similar remains. We find what appears to be a system of military defences that are later used in the Flavian boom to be the skeleton of the new road layout.
We also discover a major problem with the date range of a key pottery type, we also find a large number of military type sites around London all built in the same year or two that indicate a new basis for the rebuilding of Roman London, and which match the political framework closely. As part of the analysis we develop new techniques for looking at the archives and data and analysing these on a landscape basis, this is planned to lead on to a separate Research Project or PhD.
Now I feel that what we did was the correct amount of research (normal definition). We didn't dig any extra holes to prove anything, in fact the site was one of the heaviest mitigated ever in London, but we took the evidence to its logical conclusion. It is our job to disseminate the site details at an appropriate level. This site had major repercussions for lots of areas of study -if we hadnt researched and written about these then no-one would be any the wiser as it would never get published. Now if our findings generated a new theory on the construction of Roman forts in Neronian Empire, then we would have also written a research paper on that to go in say Britannia. The academics can then (and have already) take on board our evidence and look at wider issues and how it all fits together, but our site archive would frankly be of no use to any academics without our having done our analysis so they can get a handle on what we actually found and what we think it means.

The problems often come when small sites have something that is hugely important, or completely unexpected. At my site the fort merely replaced what would otherwise be there, but we can all think of sites where the best DBA would not have highlighted what was actually found. I worked on a site last month where the DBA said there'd be nothing there, in fact there was a very nice site which will change the archaeology of the area, and will lead to more sites being properly investigated in the area.

[andy.bicket]

quote: The problems often come when small sites have something that is hugely important, or completely unexpected. At my site the fort merely replaced what would otherwise be there, but we can all think of sites where the best DBA would not have highlighted what was actually found. I worked on a site last month where the DBA said there'd be nothing there, in fact there was a very nice site which will change the archaeology of the area, and will lead to more sites being properly investigated in the area.

Very true. I was taken on for 2 weeks to help finish off the evaluation for a massive housing development in the north of Scotland. Partly due to heavy slope wash and a badger protection area, the 5% trenching didn't pickup the 25 massive Late Iron Age roudhouses. Granary building, huge amounts of glass/enamel kilns, huge amounts of copper alloy production onsite and evidence of Roman technology and influence everywhere...as you can imagine this site redefines the archaeology of the area, and probably the overall understanding of Roman influence in the north too. 7 months later, after we recorded all of this to the Nth degree the next of 5 similar areas was began with more of the same unknown and critically important archaeology keeps coming up. The point being that only by chance, when the groundworks for the building began did the watching brief find any of this. A 'routine' site became something costing near to a £million with implications for archaeological understanding at a national level. As Bob points out this has altered the strategy for the succeeding excavations so everyone is prepared for it.

But when it came down to it HS stepped up to the plate, pressing that this be recorded and understood to a high level whilst securing the site for the future. The developer (who also owns all the land and sub-contractors) was very happy to pay for it, and be supportive with time and resources. the upshot being that a monograph of the site is now in the offing, and I'm sure the academics will get their teeth into it. So the system does kick in when really needed

But, for other sites this may never be the case.

On a slight tangent: I do think there is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy involved in these things however, as sites are often categorised into a pigeonhole very early on. If all of our chronologies (if any are adequately recorded from a site) are based on RCD because it's cheap, and we're working in the Iron Age (plateux-effect!) or Medieval sites were pottery types aren't informative and bulk RCD doesn't work well for youngish sites are we likely to find chronological subtleties that may be important for the contextual and research understanding of the site/region, especially if the samples are not sent off until during post-ex. There is still a reliance on typologies of finds and features for 'absolutely dating sites'. I imagine that this information generally comes from the academic literature of some age and also personal experience. This is an area in which academic research may help to define things better, but the cost of adequate chronology is offputting in commercial archaeology.
:face-thinks: