28th May 2010, 02:10 PM
Unit, I happen to now work for one of the organisations on the CBA list (yes, HLF funded), after having worked 10 years plus for units and as a freelancer in the commercial field. All my colleagues also have commercial experience. Also many ex-colleagues and friends who still work in the commercial field have been happy to give up some of their free time (unpaid bar a couple of pints) to come down and help out with the volunteers.
Our work is non-invasive (revolving around recording and surveying), so we're not taking any work away from professional field archaeologists- funny, until I read your stuff I still considered myself one. The volunteers range from retired people or those with jobs outside archaeology, who just want a nice interesting hobby, to a number of undergraduates who wish to join the profession and are really keen to learn as much as they can and get as much experience before they enter the (not exactly bountiful) job market. We are trying to work to the highest standards that I would have expected when running a commercial site, with the advantages that a. there's no time pressure, b. no consultant/developer giving you grief about cost/freeing up an area etc. So no need for that final 'Oh S**t, let's just hammer through the last couple of days and try and get what we can get' scenario. Of course, for the undergrads I think the driving school analogy posted ages ago on this thread is right- they'll only start to really learn when they're out there doing it day in-day out. But, surely anything we can do beforehand must help a little, if only by telling them what to expect?
Oh yes, and as part of our remit we have to and will publish
As for the difference in standards between pros and ams, it depends who they are:
Past experience #1: Running a site next to one done 10 years before by an Am group. They hadn't published anything but gave me their site notes which were pretty dire and not much use. Oh dear, not a happy Admiral.
Past experience #2: Working on a site which had been evaluated by an RAO who claimed nothing was there in the report. Not only was there a huge Saxon aisled barn, but some of its (c.1m dia) post holes (full of pot) had actually been half-sectioned and backfilled!!!! Absolutely ******* furious Admiral.
I can't speak for all, but there are some good CA projects; while we all know of unscrupulous consultants, managers or inexperienced supervisors promoted too early in the commercial sector.
If well run CA projects can help train future diggers for free, while allowing the interested public (without whom, let us remember, there would have been no Globe theatre/Baynards Castle etc. outrage, which led to PPG16 and commercial archaeology as we know it, ie. your job) to get involved that can surely only be a good thing?
Our work is non-invasive (revolving around recording and surveying), so we're not taking any work away from professional field archaeologists- funny, until I read your stuff I still considered myself one. The volunteers range from retired people or those with jobs outside archaeology, who just want a nice interesting hobby, to a number of undergraduates who wish to join the profession and are really keen to learn as much as they can and get as much experience before they enter the (not exactly bountiful) job market. We are trying to work to the highest standards that I would have expected when running a commercial site, with the advantages that a. there's no time pressure, b. no consultant/developer giving you grief about cost/freeing up an area etc. So no need for that final 'Oh S**t, let's just hammer through the last couple of days and try and get what we can get' scenario. Of course, for the undergrads I think the driving school analogy posted ages ago on this thread is right- they'll only start to really learn when they're out there doing it day in-day out. But, surely anything we can do beforehand must help a little, if only by telling them what to expect?
Oh yes, and as part of our remit we have to and will publish
As for the difference in standards between pros and ams, it depends who they are:
Past experience #1: Running a site next to one done 10 years before by an Am group. They hadn't published anything but gave me their site notes which were pretty dire and not much use. Oh dear, not a happy Admiral.
Past experience #2: Working on a site which had been evaluated by an RAO who claimed nothing was there in the report. Not only was there a huge Saxon aisled barn, but some of its (c.1m dia) post holes (full of pot) had actually been half-sectioned and backfilled!!!! Absolutely ******* furious Admiral.
I can't speak for all, but there are some good CA projects; while we all know of unscrupulous consultants, managers or inexperienced supervisors promoted too early in the commercial sector.
If well run CA projects can help train future diggers for free, while allowing the interested public (without whom, let us remember, there would have been no Globe theatre/Baynards Castle etc. outrage, which led to PPG16 and commercial archaeology as we know it, ie. your job) to get involved that can surely only be a good thing?