Private EYE !!

[the invisible man]

To my mind the phrase "commercial archaeology standards" speaks volumes, in fact pretty much sums up the thrust of this and other similar threads.

Why are "commercial archaeology standards" different to any others, why are they allowed to exist, is surely the question that should be asked?

Are archaeological deposits that happen to be on land that is the subject of a plannng application less important than those on land where, say, a university decides to conduct a research excavation?

[Tom21]

You raise a good point Mr Invisible, but I'm sure their are some who would argue that a University dig can often be inferior to that of a commercial unit due to there inherent training nature.

I also think standards are quite a thorny subject, since so much of archaeology is reliant upon on the spot decision making.

The major difference of course is that in a commercial dig you only get a single chance at deciding how best to deploy your already pre-determined resources.

[the invisible man]

Absolutely, I just wanted to draw attention to the distinction being made between a carefully run research excavation and less than ideal practice in commercial archaeology. A uni dig was the first example that sprang to mind of a research excavation.

There will of course be good and bad examples of both.

Perhaps the point I am trying to make is that all excavations are in truth research excavations, regardless of the "procurement" and funding arrangement. The implication of this thread is that we have come to regard commercial work as inevitably inferior and that this is acceptable.