Research in commercial archaeology

[chiz]

in reply to andy.bicket

sounds like a nice site! It's one of those awful moments of mixed emotion when you hit something unexpected like that and its really fantastic, but you know its really up in the air as to whether it gets done properly and you really pray the development control do their job. When you get a result like yours it feels great, when you don't you just feel sick, and very, very angry.

The finding of 'new' sites means more work will now be done in that area as there are now 'spots on the map'to show up on DBAs, but without occasionally synthesising this new data we don't actually go forward and analyse the new information to feed into research frameworks as other than find spots. We don't get to see what they really mean and understand whether we should be digging more holes there, or up the slope. So what could we do?

What about a system where proper regional research frameworks and strategies are written, and used, and a levy is put on all sites to feed into synthetic research as identified in the strategies. Say 5% added cost. Big sites would still get their thematic chapters and 'research', but there would be money to synthesise the ongoing findings so it can be fed back into the system and improve our understanding of the whole, not the individual, so making it easier to predict how much will be on a site etc etc. So it could benefit developers, albeit indirectly. The fund should not be available to bail out under-budgeted sites. The money could also be available to fund those topics that find it very hard to attract developer funding at present like finds and environmental. The research wouldn't be top-end academic noodling, but the kind of data analysis that is needed to compare sites and build up an understanding of whats going on, or to refine dating sequences etc. Stuff that is intrinsically useful, not that goes off down side alleys. As defined by agreed regional/local guidelines and strategies.

Unfortunately the fragmented nature of archaeology doesn't really help,with 20+ units competing in some areas but maybe we just have to work around that and use this kind of 'research' to drive up standards so that the work done on site and off is done to the kind of standards that will allow work like this.

Now under 1m1u's definition, this may all be classed as 'research' (his definition), but he argues that you have to read up on the sites around/books etc etc, but if no-one ever does the 'research' to write the synthetic/academic books that he says he expects people to refer to in their reports, then who will? It will all be out of date. Ah, academics do that though, funded by tax payers. But then that is subsidising the developers as they don't pay for the academics for their specific site (polluter pays principle). It all goes round in circles, but if the resource is valuable then so is what it tells us on wider levels and how it advances our knowledge. Most developers would rather see a quality academic report (and hopefully an accessible booklet too) than some grey literature full of archive tables.

I think 1m1u's point was that we shouldn't push developers too far, eg into funding a new set of academic monographs based on a peritheral link to something found on a site, and I agree totally. But I don't think the responsibility to publish a site stops as low as he maybe infers. I also agree that we should push to get more funding/expand the planning definitions, but all of a sudden, everyone appears to be rather skint.....

[Oxbeast]

'Tis interesting. This one and the 'profit' thread are two of the most interesting ones in ages. BAJR at its best, I reckon.

[Austin Ainsworth]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

'Tis interesting. This one and the 'profit' thread are two of the most interesting ones in ages. BAJR at its best, I reckon.

Informative as well - BAJR at its very best

[Paul Belford]

Since I seem inadvertantly to be at least partly responsible for starting this thread perhaps it is about time I chipped in (I have been away for a while).

Digging the Dirt seems to be spot-on here:

quote: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.

The notion of corporate social responsibility is increasingly important and this is an area which could bring benefit to archaeology.

As to other contributions:

It is worth noting that the concepts of 'preservation in situ' and 'preservation by record' are increasingly regarded as inadequate - not just in the UK but elsewhere in Europe with developer-funded archaeology systems. The idea that a site can be 'preserved' in anything like an objective fashion by record is clearly nonsense - rather, such a process is actually archaeological research which will inevitably be subjective and which should, therefore, be done within the broader context of ongoing research. 'Preservation in situ' usually doesn't work either. Nevertheless these notions of 'preservation' are still current in UK planning guidance (PPG16) although the draft of PPG16's replacement eschews these terms (at least the one that I have seen).

There is certainly a gulf between 'academia' and 'commercial' archaeologies. But this is not unbridgeable, it just requires a lot of effort by both parties to engage. Bob's Roman site provides a good case study of the right sort of approach. See also Richard Bradley's paper in the Antiquaries Journal a couple of years ago.*

Finally, it is interesting (and worrying) that no-one has yet made reference to the various regional research frameworks that have been painstakingly produced by a mixture of commercial, curatorial and academic archaeologists under the aegis of English Heritage over the last few years. Most of these are already at some stage of publication, and many are on line - just do a Google search on "archaeological research frameworks".

Does this lack of interest on BAJR mean that these frameworks are not known about? Or irrelevant? Or not good enough?



* Bradley, R. 2006,'Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain', Antiquaries Journal, 86, 1-13

[RedEarth]

quote:
There is certainly a gulf between 'academia' and 'commercial' archaeologies. But this is not unbridgeable, it just requires a lot of effort by both parties to engage. Bob's Roman site provides a good case study of the right sort of approach. See also Richard Bradley's paper in the Antiquaries Journal a couple of years ago.*

Finally, it is interesting (and worrying) that no-one has yet made reference to the various regional research frameworks that have been painstakingly produced by a mixture of commercial, curatorial and academic archaeologists under the aegis of English Heritage over the last few years. Most of these are already at some stage of publication, and many are on line - just do a Google search on "archaeological research frameworks".

Does this lack of interest on BAJR mean that these frameworks are not known about? Or irrelevant? Or not good enough?



* Bradley, R. 2006,'Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain', Antiquaries Journal, 86, 1-13

You're absolutely right, the gulf is quite bridgeable and I know of cases where this happens, but there are undoubtedly plenty where it doesn't and no-one is any the wiser. How would anyone know if someone from a university, especially from outside of the area, was doing work apart from word of mouth, which is not very reliable. Similarly, if some commercial work was being done it could be quite difficult to find out unless the papers picked up on it, or, again by word of mouth. In both cases the alternative might be waiting a long time until it is published, if it ever is. Again, a more joined up approach would be helpful.

The research frameworks are one of the best things to happen to archaeology in years as far as I can see. The one for my region is excellent because it is able to cover both academic and commercial work, and has very up to date information. They should be done more often. They are also much more useful than a lot of the detailed site-specific work paid for by developers, highlighting the need for more syntheses.

[Paul Belford]

quote:How would anyone know if someone from a university, especially from outside of the area, was doing work apart from word of mouth, which is not very reliable. Similarly, if some commercial work was being done it could be quite difficult to find out unless the papers picked up on it, or, again by word of mouth.

In theory [u]all</u> work should be reported to the local HER or SMR. Certainly a Member of the IFA would be required to do so having signed up to the Codes of Conduct. In practice only the commercial work is likely to be reported promptly, since academic archaeologists are rarely Members of the IFA. Another argument in favour of a stronger and compulsory IFA.

[andy.bicket]

It would be interesting to see how many Academics are active on BAJR.

If they are members of lists, it may be that Britarch (hmmm) or sub-discipline specific lists like environmental archaeology, are more their cup-of-tea.

...put your hands up for a quick poll! [or message me off list]

I agree, a useful dialogue should and could be set up in a more formal way.

Certainly I attended a gathering of the 1st Millennium Group, organised through the National Museum of Scotland a few years ago. Three commercial units were invited to present sites that excavations had recently been concluded on, but only the basic post-ex had been undertaken, i.e. interpretation of the whole site hadn't been completed. The mixed audience of academics, commercial archaeologists and other interested parties had a very interesting debate bringing a very wide knowledge base to bear on the raw data.

Although on-site it seemed that academic consultation occurred through established contacts or a company director was also an academic. There being a smaller community of archaeologists in Scotland, based in relatively few locations, mostly Edinburgh then Glasgow, perhaps the links are easier to form here.

And again, due to this, the publication of SAIR's [Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports - http://www.sair.org.uk/]and other site specific and regional reports are helpful in bridging the gap and updating the synthesis, presumably like the EH versions described by Paul Belford.

[chiz]

Quote:
Finally, it is interesting (and worrying) that no-one has yet made reference to the various regional research frameworks ...Does this lack of interest on BAJR mean that these frameworks are not known about? Or irrelevant? Or not good enough?

Well I mentioned the research frameworks in at least two of my posts...they act as part of a mechanism to get proper 'research' (everyone's definition) done as the norm.

An equally worrying point is that the state of many archives means that the old site data cannot be interpreted to add into research frameworks and strategies. Just dumping context files and plans in an archive is not a viable solution, it rots the past. We need to accept that we need to pay more to archive properly and embrace modern methods of archiving to ensure the data is accessible.

I suggest we use the downturn to carry out a systematic programme of backlog post-ex and sorting out what we have in the archives, and no university research digs till all the old jollies are all written up!

[gorilla]

I agree... the research frameworks are one of the best things to have happened in archaeology (in the recent past). But they do seem to get overlooked. Perhaps some of them are a bit daunting (some stretch on for pages) and, for quite a few, often get bottom-shelved. To some, they are an end to a means... "we've done the trawl, we've produced the report... now let's forget about it and get on with the next funded topic".

But they are both informative and thought inspiring. I note that at the end of each era there is a "what needs to be done next"(for a better term)... the frameworks not only assess the current state-of-play in archaeology, but also identify research gaps. A plethora of research topics are there to be found... yet, how many actual Bachelors dissertations, Masters or PhD thesis's have started as a result of the gaps identified in the frameworks?

If academics (mainly) are writing this stuff and identifying the gaps, why aren't they pushing for the work to get done? Is it a lack of interest, lack of funding or, dare I say it, it's just that academics have become parochial. Sometimes, it appears (to me) that research is geared towards what each individual academic wants, rather than to general questions that should be answered. Does the majority of research funding go to an academics 'pet' project (more-often-than-not a sciency one), or to ones that are deemed 'sexy archaeology'? Some of the best PhD topics (and students) don't get any funding at all, whilst some of the worst do.

I see Stonehenge has been dug up again (stiffled yawn)... to answer what exactly? Anything new? Well, yes it appears now that Stonehenge was a precursor of Lourdes. Amazing! Well I never! When shall we see the fruits of this 'new' research (some magnum opus that will regurgitate the same old drivel but in a different form)? Sometime in the next few years. And while they post-ex, ponder and pontificate the meaning of Stonehenge life, unfortuntately other sites and research will have to go on the back-burner. Or maybe it can be shifted onto some gullible, yet enthusiastic, PhD newbie.

As bob states... "I suggest we use the downturn to carry out a systematic programme of backlog post-ex and sorting out what we have in the archives, and no university research digs till all the old jollies are all written up!"

Couldn't agree more!

Ooo, ooo, ooo... I wanna be like you-ooo-ooo

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford

quote:How would anyone know if someone from a university, especially from outside of the area, was doing work apart from word of mouth, which is not very reliable. Similarly, if some commercial work was being done it could be quite difficult to find out unless the papers picked up on it, or, again by word of mouth.

In theory [u]all</u> work should be reported to the local HER or SMR. Certainly a Member of the IFA would be required to do so having signed up to the Codes of Conduct. In practice only the commercial work is likely to be reported promptly, since academic archaeologists are rarely Members of the IFA. Another argument in favour of a stronger and compulsory IFA.

Indeed, although I suspect that the problem is deeper rooted than that. How many archaeology students, undergraduate or post-graduate, have any concept of what the SMR/HER even is? Never mind their tutors. I think a compulsory period of work placement or at least a decent visit should be required for all, or how about modules where a project is based around information held with the SMR. There is so much information in some of them (including unpublished stuff) that a more pro-active approach would be very helpful. Perhaps the councils could team up with the local unis (where there is one). Any examples where this is already taking place? Someone is missing a trick here...