Starting Afresh

[BAJR Host]

So what is it that you feel could be done better? What is it that does not make sense the way it is done now? Why are the public not more involved? What is the point of digging hundreds of skeletons? Why are pay levels so low in archaeology? There are hundreds of problems in our chosen field, but instead of pointing out the negative aspect, lets pull our collective brain power and find workable solutions to problems and answers to questions. Instead of grumbling about a site that you felt needed more excavation, ask (without naming names unless you have contacted me personally first!) about the reasons why it happens, how could it be done better, what is the law, how does it work, what powers do curators have etc etc.

BAJR has come a long way, and I hope that it can go further, by providing solutions…. Just look at some of the BAJR guides that are thanks to the members of this forum!

Onwards and Up!


Another day another WSI…

[1man1desk]

I've just logged on after an absence of some days.

Slightly depressing really - a new thread with a positive, forward-looking approach; it's been here 4 days, over 100 people have read it, and not one response.

Well, here's a start. One problem that concerns me is the widespread ignorance and misunderstanding between different branches of the profession, often reflected in the discussions on some BAJR-Baiting threads. Many archaeologists appear unaware of the existence of some other branches of the profession, or completely misunderstand what people in other branches do.

I think that the root of the problem is in the approach of the universities, most of whom devote little if any time to informing their students about the potential careers open to them or about the basis upon which commercial archaeology in the UK works.

However, there is a potential solution that is not dependent on reforming university courses. Responsible organisations that wish to be seen as good employers could offer more CPD courses to their own staff, and as part of that could invite members of other parts of the profession to give short talks about what they do, given either in the evenings after work or at lunchtime.

I would be happy to contribute to this kind of thing from the consultancy side.

By the way, when I talk about 'branches of the profession', what I have in mind are:
1. Field archaeologists;
2. Specialists (artefactual, environmental, etc);
3. Curators;
4. Consultants;
5. Academics.

Anyone got a different list? Have I forgotten anyone?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Just glad to see a post!! thought I would wait until someone started! Cheers:D

I have copied your thread to a new thread.... hope you don't mind!

Another day another WSI…

[troll]

I think that it would be fair to say that simply because the industry is fragmented and compartmentalised, universities will apply a wide brush in an attempt to cover all main subject matter. In other words, students are given at least (I would hope) an understanding of the many arms in archaeology. One would imagine, that seeing as fieldwork in the commercial world can be seen as the main bread winner for the mass of practising archaeologists, that universities would ensure a good standard of field training- I`m not convinced that that`s universal by any means.I do believe, that many universities running degrees in archaeology are obviously out of touch with the standards required in the real world.I have worked alongside people who graduated from a uni that has a commercial unit-the standard of graduate is clearly way ahead of the norm. I would like to see more university involvement....controlled involvement.....:D

[eggbasket]

Part of the problem, based on conversations with a variety of professors and lecturers, is that the universities do not see archaeology as a vocational degree. As such, they are attempting to turn out miniature versions of themselves (mini-academics) and not people qualified to work in the real world. People often compare archaeology to engineering and this is where the analogy falls down. In engineering, the majority of degrees, as far as I can tell, are designed to get you into the marketplace and include a year with a company learning how engineering is applied. Many of the engineers I know actually had their first job after university with the company at which they did their year out. Archaeology courses assume that you will learn the trade on the job, if you go into commercial archaeology, either by working for a unit or by volunteering. If archaeology courses changed to accomodate the modern commercial world then the graduates would be more employable and more aware of what to expect. It is clear that many graduates do not know what to expect when they graduate.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Periphrastic Sesquipedalian

Preternatural eventuation is an amaranthine potentiality

[troll]

I agree that we need to understand each others mandate too. I have to say that I`m a bit taken aback by the almost universal assumption that field archaeologists are simply diggers. This brings me back to a number of other threads-I`ll be brief- if field archaeologists are seen through 19th century eyes then, yes, we are just payed workers who move dirt from one place to another.Pedochromic exfoliators if you like. No wonder we graduate into the lowest paid profession in the UK. The days of a site being dug by masses of workers overseen by someone with a degree in classics is way over (some may like to differ..) and frankly, some of the misconceptions aired on here are shocking.I`m guilty too, I`ve spat my dummy out at most....
I remember recently annoying someone on here to such an extent that they felt the need to list (in some detail) exactly what their role entailed. It`s painfully clear that we don`t communicate effectively among ourselves. Tis also clear that whilst many processes come into play before trowel cuts said dirt, the practitioners of each endeavour never meet. Much like a car assembly plant where each worker has their own enclosed, soundproof booth. Absurd. In contrast with the ethos of the 19th century, sites are now worked by qualified and experienced field archaeologists. Girlies and boylies that appear to have no unified voice other than their own. Tiz this mob that has been the most vocal in the call for the monitoring of standards-after all, they get to experience the full monty at the bottom of the process slide. The field teams get to work with what all the other grown-up archaeologists give them. We need to communicate effectively, things need to change quickly too.Whilst I`m for negotiation and for the imposition of the recommendations of the House of Lords, I`m also for someone, somewhere, to make things happen.OK, I promise not to name names. Thats about it. Institutes promise and then have 10 year studies. Unions make grand claims but simply absorb money. APPAG may well have not bothered. This is not negative......this is a catalyst for change. Work by the rules-yes, but, I`m not seeing change fast enough. In 1890 Frank Kitz (political activist) expressed his dismay at those whom he had hoped would work on his behalf "they seem to be afflicted with the timidity of anaemic respectability"..................

[drpeterwardle]

In last century many sites were excavated by local labour supervised by a staff consisting of site assistants, who did the drawing, and supervisors who wrote the diary. Then there was the finds assistant and the field chemist and of course the cook.

The labour were paid at either a rate set by government or based upon local authourity rates for labourers.

In some places archaeology graduates were used instead of local labour employed on effect on cash in hand basis to avoid tax and giving employment rights.

The body for field archaeologists was only open to people who had been in charge of a substanial project.

I would suggest that in fact things have changed dramatically in the last 15 years. Which is not to say more change is needed.

Peter

[1man1desk]

We seem to be getting a little off-topic here - the aim is to identify a problem and discuss solutions, not bang on about the problem without taking it forward.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Cautionary Tale]

Dragging ourselves back to the subject of public involvement, I was part of one of the supervised Time Team 'Big Dig' projects which meant people could see an archaeological trench being excavated and take part (though the health and safety aspect was a nightmare, fortunately most of this was taken on by Troll). The Southampton Unit regularly undertake community digs (by all accounts successfully and long term), so perhaps there is mileage in authority units pushing public involvement forward.

[BAJR Host]

.....of archaeological work (including any post-excavation work) and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.

10. If significant archaeological remains are uncovered, the applicant is expected to make provision for public accessibility, either through local media involvement, school visits/talk, open days (dependant on site conditions), exhibitions or evening talks. Community involvement should be seen as a positive step in creating both a local sense of history and an important aspect for the development and community well-being.

Section from the East and Midlothian Specifications for archaeological work. So it can and is being done and promoted....

Just have to get it seen as normal - and of course not every site is suitable. In fact... having the local society standing on your patio as you carry out a watching brief may not be the best use of this clause ;)


Another day another WSI…

[troll]

Would love to move things forwards....just can`t seem to get past an overwhelming middle-class coffee morning attitude exuding from the brickwork. Yes- things are different from 15 years ago.Not entirely surprising.No, things are nowhere near good enough as they stand. If you don`t mind, I think that I have no choice but to "bang on" until someone can be bothered to look outside of their own window. Mr Hosty asks what it is that we feel could be done better. How about cross-disciplinary communication and the formation of an agenda that we can ALL move forwards with?

[Cautionary Tale]

I agree with Troll: how about we collect reps from for example ALGAO, IFA, CBA and perhaps someone from the ODPM and bang their heads together. If someone will hold them still long enough, that looks like a decent forum: standards, code of conduct, pulic involvement and legistlation. Its a good dream.

[the invisible man]

Some months ago there was a thread asking what you would do if one morning you were put in charge of the IFA - specific actions, not vague generalisations (a la Rik Mayalls People's Poet - "when are we going to have a government that does something for the kids?") As far as I recall there was a deafening silence - but naturally I had my two penn'orth! (BAJR will explain what that is to you youngsters...).

It can't happen now that things have gone on too long but I'd like to see the whole concept of tendered/developer funded archaeology reconsidered.

As I've said before, it's a bit rich for the industry to demand that universities provide them with a free supply of ready-trained staff when it does nothing to help, train or fund the process, or to reward the products of the system.

How is David's East Lothian item 10 funded, I wonder, if you don't know what's there before you dig it up?

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

As I've said before, it's a bit rich for the industry to demand that universities provide them with a free supply of ready-trained staff when it does nothing to help, train or fund the process, or to reward the products of the system.

Developer funded archaeology is by its very nature Developer funded. What more do you want? Granted, pay for field archaeologists is poor, but that is a problem that can only be addressed by the contracting units. After all (see elsewhere on this board ad nauseum), they are the ones setting Diggers wages, the levels of which are dictated by what they (the contractors) have asked for from the developer.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Not just there for the rotten things in life like a blocked wormhole

[the invisible man]

Err, yes, I think that's what I meant. In the scramble to win contracts, not only are wages as low as possible (obviously this is a supply and demand effect) but there is no funding (or profit, if you like, allowed for as an overhead) to pay for training of staff, whether in the form of placements or paid trainees or whatever. Yes, a couple of units offer unpaid placements to students on a Bradford placement year, for example, but this is something of a drop in the ocean and tends to be in specialist fields. But mostly they expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[sniper]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

What is the point of digging hundreds of skeletons?

erm, that would be to comply with the new EH/Church of England guidelines on best practice for treatment of human remains. That's like saying what's the point in digging up loads of bits of pot, or what's the point of recording those Roman walls properly. Human remains, disregarding the fact that they are the remains of once living people who deserve to be treated with respect, are a vital part of the archaeological record. That lovely glass vessel, or that fine bone pin that I'm sure you wouldn't even question the necessity to excavate and conserve properly, well, those skeletons, the people they once were, they made all those artefacts that some seem to believe should be treated with more care than the people themselves. Archaeology without a consideration of past peoples is, frankly, pointless, and can sometimes, naming no names, be reduced to a mad scramble for pretty things to stick in a museum cabinet.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Greetings Snipey. I have`nt got a hold of said new guidelines from English Heritics yet-is it true that now-all Human remains have to be removed from burial grounds before development can take place? Is there any new obligations in terms of funding for post-ex of said remains?
Good to hear from you mate-hope all is well.:D

[sniper]

The new guidelines only cover skeletons from Christian burial grounds, and it is rather a weighty tome, but it basically says that unless developers can mitigate the disturbance of human remains by changing their plans or rafting the site (the Home Office will not grant a licence for disturbance of human remains if the site is going to be piled), then all skeletons have to be fully excavated if they lie within the excavation area. This excavation also extends to recovering and wet-sieving the grave fill to recover small bones and teeth. In terms of post-excavation work, the developer has an obligation to provide funds for further work on the skeletons, at least upto the assessment phase, and onto analysis if the collection is deemed to be osteologically and archaeologically important (a decision that has to be made by the osteologist at the assessment phase) and also for the reburial (which cannot take place before the assessment phase has been completed, and should not take place if the collection is deemed as important) or long term storage of the collection.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Apologies invisible-only just seen your post about "if I were in charge of the IFA..."
1.fulfill obligations as mandated by ppg16 (maintain standards)
2.lobby vigorously for the replacement of guidence with legislation
3.re-assess the accreditation system
4.introduce accreditation for field archaeologists outside of the current three-tier system and reinforce the view that field archaeology is a specialism in its own right
5.have serious words with the culture minister
6.retract the view that most archs earn an average of 20k pa
7.listen to the industry view
8.push the state for further funding to facillitate the monitoring/enforcement of standards
9.fulfill the pledge to raise the value of archaeologists/archaeology in the eyes of the public
10.cease the practise of indulging in ten-year studies when issues are raised that require urgent attention
11.introduce industry-wide monitors (quality assurance) in line with other established professions
12.take part in BAJR discussions
13.attend the BAJR conference(s)

[archae_logical]

(It can't happen now that things have gone on too long but I'd like to see the whole concept of tendered/developer funded archaeology reconsidered)

I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.
Why can't it happen now [?] Nothing is ever set in stone it just needs the will of the people to change it.:D

Also why is it, in archaeology, guidelines are treated as guidance which can be ignored but in other areas as guidance that show best practice? :(

A very puzzled non-archaeologist onlooker }:)

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by archae_logical

I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.


Well, as I understand it, that is what used to happen before commercial units were around. Each region/city/county had its archaeological unit, there was even the fabled CAU (wasn't there?). They did work under the direction of the local authority archaeologist, but all that changed with PPG16. I believe that PPG16 is probably a good basis because it can oblige developers to give allowances to archaeology, the times when sites slip through the cracks are down to multiple applications (seen it many times) and human error }:)

[troll]

Is`nt it the case that ppg 16 has opened the door to watered down cut-price hit and run archaeology? Hmmmmm, let me see....big powerful developer....small obliging survivalist arch units....
Optional standards...plenty of complacent/lethargic curators(extremely good but under-resourced ones notwithstanding)...some extremely dubious consultants....aloof and badly informed planning committees.....:(

[sniper]

and just what is it going to do when the development for the Olympics starts? Minister for Culture, Media and Sport. good combination guys, I wonder just what is going to win there...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[1man1desk]

quote:Is`nt it the case that ppg 16 has opened the door to watered down cut-price hit and run archaeology? Hmmmmm, let me see....big powerful developer....small obliging survivalist arch units....
Originally posted by Troll


quote:I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer Orignally posted by Archae_logical

Try looking at some published 'rescue' excavations from before PPG16, as I have done while writing up more recent excavations, or talk to people (like me) who worked in rescue archaeology before PPG16. What you will find is that, because the excavations were publicly funded, budgets were much tighter than now, so the excavations were much smaller and usually to a much lower standard. There was also much more selection - many sites just went by the board, with no mitigation at all. And, of course, there was no evaluation, so only sites that were already well-known were even considered.

For all its faults, PPG16 has hugely improved the quality and quantity of archaeological work in the development process. Evaluation (largely a creation of PPG16) means that local authorities have more information before they grant planning permission; developer funding means that they are more willing to impose conditions for mitigation excavation; and the curators are much more powerful than before.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Post-Med Potterer]

Hmmm...


quote:I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.

Er, excuse me but this is exactly how the system does work now. An independent archaeological company does the work, the county archaeologist monitors it and the developer pays for it. Anything that is found is 'reported immediately' to the county archaeologist, who is an 'appropriate person' who decides what the response will be. Monitoring visits by the county archaeologist on most projects I am involved with take place every week. A solution is arrived at which preserves archaeology either in situ or by record, at the cost of the developer, but still enabling the development (and the economic, social etc. benefits which accrue from development) to occur.

[sniper]

i have to agree, from my recent experience of working with material from a pre-PPG16 rescue excavation, that things have improved, at least in terms of treatment and assessment/analysis of the material. The stuff I have been working on has been out of the ground for over 30 years, but has never been looked at, and could only now be looked at because of external funding. That, at least, would not happen now...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

I have no issue with the concept that ppg16 has improved things from what they were. Arguably, we live longer now than we did in the days of the industrial revolution-and?
ppg is full of holes, is 25 years old, is exploited to the full and needs to evolve.Just because things are better than they were, why stop evolving? We`d still be crawling out of primordeal sludge if we all decided everythings rosey as it is.........it`s not, by a very long way.:D

[sniper]

of course I'm not suggesting that PPG is wonderful, fantastic and shouldn't change, not least in becoming more than just "guidance", which can easily be ignored. I suppose at least the material from pre-PPg days was stored until something could be done with it, now it would probably be reburied with the specialists's advice being ignored

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[1man1desk]

Sniper,

I know of at least one case from pre-PPG16 days where all the pot and stone artefacts from a site that had produced lorry-loads (literally) was sold as construction aggregate. I suppose you could call that a form of storage...

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[achingknees]

Troll - as said elsewhere PPG16 is still only a young teenager :)

Sniper - I guess that you are alluding to your precious skellies re burying of material. The only cases of re-burial I have come across in my work is of the sticky vicar variety - very rare. Would like to know of examples though. I think that under current guidelines (though not explicitly stated) once a cemetery population has been deemed worthy of osteological analysis it is deemed worthy of curation (following arguments for advance in science in the future etc). In my areas of work I have found that once something is in a bag and labelled it is very difficult to discard.

[sniper]

achingknees, I know of at least 2 examples where skeletal material has been designated for reburial after analysis, even though the osteologist advised that they were scientifically important collections and should be curated for further study. If you would like to know more please email me through here and I can give you details.

1man, I also know of a pre-PPG site where much material was stored by being buried in a large hole...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[troll]

Achingknees-Apologies, you`re absolutely right.I keep making the mistake of lumping PPG in the same chronology as Herr Thatcher.Now why would I do that I wonder............:D