comparative studies

[troll]

How do other nations treat their heritage? What systems are in place and do they work?
On another website, I recently saw a quote from an American archaeologist "if you think we have it bad here guys, just look at what goes on in the UK".
I don`t appreciate being ashamed of the system in my country of birth.

[Tim]

It's even worse here. At least you have people who know how to dig

Little Tim

[troll]

Yep-site assistants.
Of course this is only one aspect...how do other nations legislate-if at all to ensure the heritage gets a good deal?:D

[troll]

Yep-site assistants.
Of course this is only one aspect...how do other nations legislate-if at all to ensure the heritage gets a good deal?:D

[Cautionary Tale]

If you search for the World Archaeological Conference in Cape Town, you should find a paper comparing UK to USA archaeological frameworks. Apparently the US went commercial in the 60s. I shall interrogate a Canadian type I know for the exact situation there, but I gather there is a much stronger tradition of simply building well away from archaeological sites because there is simply so much more space.

(I really have worked in the field)

[Cautionary Tale]

If you search for the World Archaeological Conference in Cape Town, you should find a paper comparing UK to USA archaeological frameworks. Apparently the US went commercial in the 60s. I shall interrogate a Canadian type I know for the exact situation there, but I gather there is a much stronger tradition of simply building well away from archaeological sites because there is simply so much more space.

(I really have worked in the field)

[idontdodinos]

Each province in Canada has its own system in place although they are quite similar. New build sites, pipelines, forestry sites etc are surveyed by qualified archaeologists (ie. those with BA/BSc minimum) with those sites in danger of destruction being excavated. Archives are deposited with the provincial museum. I would guess the majority of sites are published due to the short excavation season (we don't excavate in the winter, with the ground being frozen and all). Staff spend the winter in the lab doing post-ex. Some units even encourage staff to write journal articles about the site!

Prior to excavation the unit has to obtain a permit to excavate from the provincial government. In Alberta the permit holder must have a relevant masters degree from a recognised univeristy.

I am sure there are some horror stories out there but from what I have heard from those who have been working in commercial archaeology things are pretty good. There are definately perks, such as decent food and lodging paid for on all away sites and a good salary.

I think a factor which has an influence on how sites are treated back home is that most sites are palaeo-indian/native sites. There is still a very large native population who are the direct descendants of the people who lived on the same land 500, 1000, 5000, even 15,000 years ago whereas England, which had been invaded by the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons etc etc there is not so much of a direct link to the people and cultures that we excavate over here as there is in Canada. There is a long history of oral tradition within the native culture and archaeologists often work alongside the local natives bands and tribes (who are trying to preserve their unique culture), in an effort to help each other understand the archaeology, even on commerical sites.

I hope that makes sense. I'd be happy to clarify my rambling if need be [?]

dinos

[idontdodinos]

Each province in Canada has its own system in place although they are quite similar. New build sites, pipelines, forestry sites etc are surveyed by qualified archaeologists (ie. those with BA/BSc minimum) with those sites in danger of destruction being excavated. Archives are deposited with the provincial museum. I would guess the majority of sites are published due to the short excavation season (we don't excavate in the winter, with the ground being frozen and all). Staff spend the winter in the lab doing post-ex. Some units even encourage staff to write journal articles about the site!

Prior to excavation the unit has to obtain a permit to excavate from the provincial government. In Alberta the permit holder must have a relevant masters degree from a recognised univeristy.

I am sure there are some horror stories out there but from what I have heard from those who have been working in commercial archaeology things are pretty good. There are definately perks, such as decent food and lodging paid for on all away sites and a good salary.

I think a factor which has an influence on how sites are treated back home is that most sites are palaeo-indian/native sites. There is still a very large native population who are the direct descendants of the people who lived on the same land 500, 1000, 5000, even 15,000 years ago whereas England, which had been invaded by the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons etc etc there is not so much of a direct link to the people and cultures that we excavate over here as there is in Canada. There is a long history of oral tradition within the native culture and archaeologists often work alongside the local natives bands and tribes (who are trying to preserve their unique culture), in an effort to help each other understand the archaeology, even on commerical sites.

I hope that makes sense. I'd be happy to clarify my rambling if need be [?]

dinos

[troll]

Many thanx-this is what I`m after. Apparently in OZ, after a four-year honours degree you become a consultant.......:D

[troll]

Many thanx-this is what I`m after. Apparently in OZ, after a four-year honours degree you become a consultant.......:D

[uncle andy]

dont believe everything you hear in the pub shags. While (Aus) we may be able to call ourselves "consultants" after 4 years, there is a very simple accreditation system that evaluates consultants according to their experience, granting them differing levels of membership to the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists, which (I assume) is used to pre-qualify consultants to various sized jobs.

http://www.aacai.com.au/whatisaacai.html

However, having only completed three of my four years on my way to said "consutancy", I am not in a position to tell you if it is effective.

In any case, given the scarcity of work, and the growing # of archaeologists, I think the really ordinary ones soon get discovered and very well known. Such competition, of course, also makes it difficult to establish regular work regardless of whether you are calling yourself a digger or consultant, and therefore makes the issue somewhat academic.

[Hugh]

quote:Originally posted by troll

How do other nations treat their heritage? What systems are in place and do they work?
On another website, I recently saw a quote from an American archaeologist "if you think we have it bad here guys, just look at what goes on in the UK".
I don`t appreciate being ashamed of the system in my country of birth.


That rich, have you seen how they excavate?
France is meant to have brought in a terrible pecie of legislation a couple of years ago. I don't know if it has since been repealed but it amounted to a statement that said that developers didn't have to do archaeological investigations if they didn't want to. It's in one of the European Archaeologist Journals form 2003.

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by idontdodinos


I think a factor which has an influence on how sites are treated back home is that most sites are palaeo-indian/native sites. There is still a very large native population who are the direct descendants of the people who lived on the same land 500, 1000, 5000, even 15,000 years ago whereas England, which had been invaded by the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons etc etc there is not so much of a direct link to the people and cultures that we excavate over here as there is in Canada. There is a long history of oral tradition within the native culture and archaeologists often work alongside the local natives bands and tribes (who are trying to preserve their unique culture), in an effort to help each other understand the archaeology, even on commerical sites.

dinos


Maybe, but the British can point to continuous occupation since the end of the Ice Age. A few contributions to the melting pot have occured, but on balance these are extremely local additions on the whole ie channel hopping. Until fairly recently the spice in the pot was provided by the (non-Roman) Romans, but essentially the same meat over 10,000 years plus.

In the Americas there is much debate about multiple founders. Also there is good historical evidence for great dynamics in settlement. This must have occured in the more distant past as well.

So, I think it's more to do with perception than reality.

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by troll

How do other nations treat their heritage? What systems are in place and do they work?
On another website, I recently saw a quote from an American archaeologist "if you think we have it bad here guys, just look at what goes on in the UK".
I don`t appreciate being ashamed of the system in my country of birth.


Without a context for this I can't give an opinion - what is so bad? Just to get some balance (and not being a nationalistic archie), there are good reasons for being proud of archaeology in the UK. In the USA they may do some things better, like paying more attention to topsoil artefacts, but there is a horrible entrenchment for digging sites in a planum method. Indeed, Dr Ed Harris has received some severe criticism over the years for his single context and matrix system. Planum excavation is also very common outside the UK, even in European countries with a long archaeological fieldwork pedigree. Tim, what's the situation in Switzerland?

[achingknees]

further to my last past here's a quote from the great man himself...

Later on, the Matrix Movement was given considerable impetus in the Americas by its adoption at Colonial Williamsburg under the leadership of Dr. Marley Brown, III, its Director of Archaeological Research. Given the unfortunate nationalistic bias of some American archaeologists/anthropologists, I take pleasure somewhat in the fact that I have never been able to publish in an American journal. When I approached American Antiquity with an interesting and possible important article on the subject of the interface, I was run out of town, with one reviewer baying for blood, saying that I ‘should not be allowed to continue in archaeology at all.’ Unfortunately for that dear soul, the cat was already out of the bag and it continues to feast on those pigeons that destroy archaeological sites without adequate stratigraphic recording.

*************
visit this essential site....esp the history section...

http://www.harrismatrix.com/

[Curator Kid]

Edward Harris - We are truely not worthy.

I worked in the Middle East a few years ago, and there was a team there run by a Dutch Archaeologist, who were excavating in Wheeler boxes. It was Bizarre. We were digging in MoLAS-style 5m squares with single-context recording, and they didn't get it at all.

[achingknees]

Curator Kiddo - I'm sad to say that there are still archies in good old Blighty who think archaeology involves machining to natural then emptying the features. I've seen some take this approach in deeply stratified urban sites. :face-confused: And the obsession with having sections to draw!!! :(

Such folk need to be locked in a room with copies of the Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy and the MoLAS recording manual. Release should be dependant on digging an escape route stratigraphically with fully checked matrix. :)

[Curator Kid]

I couldn't agree more Achingknees. I'd like to beat such folk around the head with my copy of Priciples of Archaeological Stratigraphy, but unfortunately I can't because this has just reminded me that Monitor Lizard borrowed my copy about 5 years ago and has still got it. Any chance of getting it back then ML?

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by Curator Kid

I couldn't agree more Achingknees. I'd like to beat such folk around the head with my copy of Priciples of Archaeological Stratigraphy, but unfortunately I can't because this has just reminded me that Monitor Lizard borrowed my copy about 5 years ago and has still got it. Any chance of getting it back then ML?


But I want it. I use it to spread the Gospel of Mr Harris to the unenlightened. Surely that's better than it getting dusty on your bookshelf.....

[Curator Kid]

But I can't spread the Gospel myself! I am shorn of the holy texts...

[Post-Med Potterer]

Buy a new one! Or go to Bermuda...

[troll]

In context, the American website was commenting on our pay and conditions. Having worked with archaeologists abroad-I share your view, we have something to be proud of. On the other hand, I make the distinction between commercial archaeology and the proper variety. Achingknees has hit the nail on the head-pull everything out to natural, empty it and go home. Occurs with a frightening frequency.Just one practise of many. Archaeology does`nt belong in a commercial environment in it`s current form. Simply requiring the bare minimum from a client is an old and inadequate ethic. The rate at which development has increased since the introduction of guidelines has meant that a painfully incalculable number of archaeological sites have been approached with this minimalist attitude. Competative environments can be healthy yes but- where the minimum is the starting gate for the tendering process......[?]:D

[the invisible man]

That's it in a nutshell, Trollster, IMHO.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[troll]

Uncle Andy! Still owe you an e-mail or four......
Thanks for the post mate-hope you are well? I felt the need to point out the consultant bit because it illustrated a point well. Here, an honours degree generally knights one with the role of "digger".In Oz, even the use of the term "consultant" suggests that archaeology is seen in a different light. A new graduate seen as a consultant conveys a very different value-context for potential clients."Consultant" arguably raises the value/significance of the archaeology in the eyes of the public? Would be interested to hear how it all works. It can create a bit of hysteria here though, I think most of us would be wary of newly graduated consultants-although that of course depends on who you ask. I did`nt realise that Oz jobs were so competitive either.I worked recently with peeps who had undergone a four-year Classics degree.Any sort of archaeology was only offered as an optional short module. These guys dig other peoples countries........On another issue-without being too delicate, hows the wages going in Oz?:D

[Tim]

There a lot of people here who dig in the "planum" - horizontal spit method. The people who use it a almost all bull****ters, incompetents, or functionaries interested only in prolonging their projects. It takes 4-5 times longer on site, destroys all stratigraphic relationships, mixes finds, is almost impossible to phase, record contamination and residuality understand or recognise truncation. It takes even longer to analyse and write up even if possible. The people who use this method haven't a clue and it is evident when working with them and they spend most of their time trying to remove, backstab, trample on anyone who tells them they're wrong.

Little Tim

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by Tim

It takes 4-5 times longer on site, destroys all stratigraphic relationships, mixes finds, is almost impossible to phase, record contamination and residuality understand or recognise truncation. It takes even longer to analyse and write up even if possible.

Otherwise, fine?:D

(quoting Basil Fawlty)

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[mercenary]

Nice critique Tim. Coming originally from the North American school of archaeology, where the planum method is all conquering I had assumed that it was occasionally useful. Palaeolithic sites perhaps? Now I'm not sure.

Should UK archaeologists go out amongst the Philistines to preach the religion of stratigraphy? Dutiful acolytes of our High Priest Harris.

[troll]

Managers should learn the concept of stratigraphy from their fieldworkers here before daring to indulge in such a tour de force??:D

[1man1desk]

I did hear of the planum method in the 1980s, when working with some Swedes in Shetland. They described it and said it was standard in Sweden and Holland, and found our stratigraphic approach very surprising.

I have never heard of it since, and didn't know it still existed.

For clarification - has anyone ever seen it practiced in the UK?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:For clarification - has anyone ever seen it practiced in the UK?



I heard, secondhand, of an attempt in London a few years back on a flint scatter. It seems to have been applied badly and the methodology was changed midway through, thus making it statistically worthless. Where it entirely fell apart was when cut features were encountered beneath the flint scatter, and for resons only known to the PO were ignored.

[Illuminated]

I have dug using the planum method occasionally.

It has its place on non deeply stratified sites where context boundaries are merging and indistinct. Even in such cases (for example on sand and gravel) it is suitable only on small features or cuts of which a specific dating question is being asked - it is a slow method of excavation.
I don't believe even the most competent excavator can distinguish every context change in every light and weather condition without slowing to less than a snail's pace. A well positioned and cleaned section is the only sure way to get true stratigraphic relationships, and it is better to compare five sepaerate spits of evidence against a section than a jumble which all came out of yellowy brown sandy loam which apppeared homogenous during excavation.

[troll]

Archaeology ignored by a PO in the UK? Surely not?:D:D:D

[achingknees]

If the strat is there and contexts/units can be identified, dig it as such. That said, there are some sites where a planum method can be applied TO SOME EXTENT...some flint scatters, cemeteries where grave cuts are difficult to see, deep features where the fill appears homogeneous.

[1man1desk]

Achingknees,

Some of what you say sounds just like a well-organised approach to traditional stratigraphic excavation.

My understanding of the planum method (I may have it wrong, because I have never knowingly seen it practiced) is that it is specifically applied over whole areas, ignoring vertical stratigraphy. By definition, then, if you excavate the homogenous fill of a large pit in a series of spits, you are not applying the planum method, because you are working within the cut of the pit.

If, on the other hand, your spits extend beyond the edges of the pit and you are recording by planning the newly exposed limits of the pit after each spit, then you are applying the planum method.

Have I misunderstood, or is that about right?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Tim]

...And I forgot it's also impossible to sample and more impotantly estimate your sample volumes.

Little Tim

[achingknees]

1man1desk,

You are right about the homogeneous pit - just a sensible way to dig a big, deep feature really, not planum as such. The planum method can be used on cemeteries where grave cuts are not obvious. But it can have pitfalls!! In the end they usually become a mix of planum and stratigraphic excavation.

Planum excavation on good clear strat however is criminal in my book. Ask the man from Bermuda. :)