you cant sell what nobody wants

[P Prentice]

One of the problems is that there is so little money invested in research and synthesis of UK archaeological data. .....We need a team of centrally funded 'super synthesisers' to develop and see through projects based on the mass of archaeological data created over the past 40 years.....

and this is already being undertaken with prehistoric and roman work but the product is dry and impenetrable to anybody who is not an archaeologist. at the other end of the spectrum you have the time team which was incredibly successful in showcasing the multivarious strands of the discipline to the general public but it did nothing for pay or contracts, in fact i suspect it helped to hold down pay levels bny demonstrating how easy it all is and how anybody can get involved.

[kevin wooldridge]

and this is already being undertaken with prehistoric and roman work but the product is dry and impenetrable to anybody who is not an archaeologist.

That is interesting. Do you have any details about where these projects are being undertaken and by whom. I would love to know how British prehistory is being 'synthesised' and particularly what data is being used in the projects.....as for the Roman period there is a mass of data in the London archives that isn't being looked at right now...I'd be interested as to how a Roman project can proceed without including such important sites....

[Marc Berger]

we have already made the moral compact with our society to publish our findings - we do this by taking on the "destruction" job in the first place! Having agreed to do the archaeology, in my mind it is a mortal sin demanding public crucifixion (inverted!) if we then refuse to provide the archive and report for other researchers. This unfortunately undermines our ability to play chicken with the potential buyers...

even thought there might be some archaeological organisations involved in "compact" with society http://www.compactvoice.org.uk/about-us I don't see how it relates to field archaeologists. I can find no compact that I am party to. That includes the codes of the ifa. Without permission from the landowner we have no archaeology. That permission creates ownership creates value.

our product has intangible value rather than easily-calculated value -

how about we start with the easily calculated value. I am often asked particularly on pointless watching briefs what's the most expensive thing that I have found. Well I charge one day in the office for every day in the field. I have experienced on more than a few occasions only finding a few residual sherds over a few days. Now society wanted to find those sherds and I can give them a price based on rates and at the end of the field work I can give you a cost of production which also includes a post ex budget.

Now let us consider the intangible value. Good luck with that, see what you can get, but how about minimally charging for a start the cost of production? And if the polluters don't want it tell society that if they want archaeology that they must pay for it themselves. Now I am working under the model that I am a commercial field archaeologist because we have been kicked out of the Intangible final salaried pension government guarantee deal under which "moral" voluntary occupational therapy archaeology evolved and not the old Intangible gravey train gush gush approach that this condition relies on. http://planreg.towerhamlets.gov.uk/WAM/d...ageCount=1

Now how much would you pay to live there? Lots hay they have a different way of doing things in london

[P Prentice]

That is interesting. Do you have any details about where these projects are being undertaken and by whom. I would love to know how British prehistory is being 'synthesised' and particularly what data is being used in the projects.....as for the Roman period there is a mass of data in the London archives that isn't being looked at right now...I'd be interested as to how a Roman project can proceed without including such important sites....

i was referring to the grey literature reviews by richard bradley and mike fulford, the latter a work in progress. they both represent quite thorough trawls through grey literature though not tuned to completely unreported sites. my point i suppose is that they are completely off the real world radar and the results, some remarkable, will not percolate through for generations.
most peoples perception of the archaeological and social history of the world is still essentially that being espoused at the height of empire by public school historians. even archaeologist trot this crap out, mostly i think through ignorance and fear of philosophical archaeology, but also for fear of contradiction and what i would consider as healthy debate.
i am though enclined toward the grand narrative, but not when left to the usual suspects. it surely has never been easier to disseminate and there is a wide variety of media so why are we stuck on 19th century outlets? why are we so precious about dissemination?

[Mike.T.]

Without permission from the landowner we have no archaeology. That permission creates ownership creates value.

Landowners don't have any choice though do they ? Either pay for any potential Archaeology or don't do any development.

[Dinosaur]

The archaeological 'product' with value to the client on the vast majority of jobs is the signing-off of planning constraints - this is being done far too easily (if at all) by curators, with only rare examples of any sort of effective enforcement. No developer is going to pay proper money to have proper archaeological work done until that issue is addressed

[Jack]

Yep. Dino. In most cases, we commercial archaeologists are not producing a product per se, but providing a service.

In the same way that commercial ecologists provide a service (consultation, survey and mitigation of habitat/species loss etc).

But archaeologists (as a whole) do produce a product as in research and dissemination in the same way as Ecologists (as a whole do)

However, as I understand it, Ecological research is linked to bigger pots of money than archaeology due to the green revolution (i.e. the threats of climate change) as international organisations, big business, governments, insurance companies etc are taking note of climatology.

I think this disparity is due to the fact that the ecologists/climatologists etc had a really big, focused, coordinated period of hard sell......though they had a better catch line than us ...'listen or the end of the world is nigh.'

Best we could muster at the moment is 'listen or we wont ever know much about our past and conversely will lose opportunities to study some stuff on long timescales.'

[Jack]

One of the problems is that there is so little money invested in research and synthesis of UK archaeological data. I can think of a number of potential projects that would demonstrate the 'added value' of archaeological data particularly with regard to environmental matters, climate change, sea level changes, previous exploitation of land, industrial pollution etc etc let alone its intrinsic cultural value.....We need a team of centrally funded 'super synthesisers' to develop and see through projects based on the mass of archaeological data created over the past 40 years.....

Yep, but first a cross-disciple team of funding, publicity and marketing experts and 'fixers' and facilitators to publicise the potential of archaeological data in other fields of study and the commercial and buisness worlds, to contact members of other fields/buisnesses, form cross-discipline co-op groups, secure funding, publicise the results..etc.

Like NERC do for climatology, ecology and occasionally archaeology.

[Dinosaur]

One of the problems is that there is so little money invested in research and synthesis of UK archaeological data.

Any good DBA should provide a synthesis of at least the data local to the proposed development, whether from published, grey lit, notes on HERs, a bit of DBA-related research and, of course, pers. comms. from the people who really know the area (that rarely happens, of course, where units are 'working away') - larger schemes obviously require DBAs covering wider areas. The road scheme I'm currently involved in has provided an opportunity to do this over what is effectively a small 'region' at various stages of the project. Once we're all producing 'good' DBAs any wider synthesis should then become a piece of p**s? - but then one day pigs might fly too...

[Dinosaur]

Jack - what's a cross-disciple and where can I recruit some? }