22nd July 2010, 11:39 AM
Hi
Is Uo1' idea an example of an archaeologists with "policies" or simply ideological opinions driven by financial gain and a wish to have freedom from scrutiny by officers representing democratically elected members?
Kicking curators is a BAJR staple and because I although I always enjoy being hailed as an inexperienced, unregulated bureaucrat who doesn't know the difference between WHS and Argos brands and on who's head the sole responsibility for all ills in archaeology squarely falls, I thought I'd have a go too....
Most commercial archaeologists, because of their lack of experience (and possibly overlong hours in the pub) cannot negotiate with developers without just making complete fools of themselves. Standing in meetings with their scruffy ex-army clothing, trowel in back pocket, unlaced boots, smoking a roll-up, smelling of old patchouli and recent sweat, calling everybody "man" talking about "whole earth sampling" not realising developers think their referring to Muesli and complaining loudly about the lack of professional standards whilst telling the developer that they can "do the job cheaper than anybody else".
Then when the excavation is in progress they whine about "unexpected results" due to "the evaluation under representing the archaeology" (which was of course carried out by a rival unit, but when quoting was fully accepted as being good enough to base a price on). So they put forward a "strategy" which involves digging more features with more people and consequently more costs. They are surprised at the large amount of Roman pottery from the site explaining that "the evaluation missed the rubbish pits and focused on the building remains so they didn't expect so much pot". A site visit involves trying to elicit responses from barley coherent mumbling dirty people who will not look you in the eye and point at invisible features they have yet to excavate and tell you "there's loads of re-cuts man" while any sane person sees a ditch with more than one fill.
Even worse post-excavation involves getting somebody straight out of Uni to "analyse" the enviro, who's very pleased that "the macro-fossil evidence fits with their PhD thesis on post-processional paradigms in colonial Nigeria" and is "really excited about the assemblage" whilst showing you a spelt seed. Of course it turns out that the pottery is all greyware and requires no further work and that the on-site interpretation of the possible "Iron Age ritual enclosure" is actually a series of field drains with residual pottery.
Then you wait five years before finally receiving a pdf of a report (if your lucky) missing the matrix "cus you don't really need one on rural sites" and/or "the original PO did one but they left under a cloud (to join a rival unit in other words) and they "deliberately didn't hand over the projects properly". Further correspondence with the archaeologists pointing out the deficiencies of said report results in the statement that "it's all the bl**dy curators fault cus they discharged the condition and so the developers don't need to pay anymore" (completely misunderstanding basic planning legislation) and finally sullen silence,
until the next meeting.........
Are people happy with my characterisation? Or am I simply taking a general feeling of frustration about archaeology and blaming "others" who can be lumped together in a caricature daily mailesque way rather than responding properly?
:face-stir:
Is Uo1' idea an example of an archaeologists with "policies" or simply ideological opinions driven by financial gain and a wish to have freedom from scrutiny by officers representing democratically elected members?
Kicking curators is a BAJR staple and because I although I always enjoy being hailed as an inexperienced, unregulated bureaucrat who doesn't know the difference between WHS and Argos brands and on who's head the sole responsibility for all ills in archaeology squarely falls, I thought I'd have a go too....
Most commercial archaeologists, because of their lack of experience (and possibly overlong hours in the pub) cannot negotiate with developers without just making complete fools of themselves. Standing in meetings with their scruffy ex-army clothing, trowel in back pocket, unlaced boots, smoking a roll-up, smelling of old patchouli and recent sweat, calling everybody "man" talking about "whole earth sampling" not realising developers think their referring to Muesli and complaining loudly about the lack of professional standards whilst telling the developer that they can "do the job cheaper than anybody else".
Then when the excavation is in progress they whine about "unexpected results" due to "the evaluation under representing the archaeology" (which was of course carried out by a rival unit, but when quoting was fully accepted as being good enough to base a price on). So they put forward a "strategy" which involves digging more features with more people and consequently more costs. They are surprised at the large amount of Roman pottery from the site explaining that "the evaluation missed the rubbish pits and focused on the building remains so they didn't expect so much pot". A site visit involves trying to elicit responses from barley coherent mumbling dirty people who will not look you in the eye and point at invisible features they have yet to excavate and tell you "there's loads of re-cuts man" while any sane person sees a ditch with more than one fill.
Even worse post-excavation involves getting somebody straight out of Uni to "analyse" the enviro, who's very pleased that "the macro-fossil evidence fits with their PhD thesis on post-processional paradigms in colonial Nigeria" and is "really excited about the assemblage" whilst showing you a spelt seed. Of course it turns out that the pottery is all greyware and requires no further work and that the on-site interpretation of the possible "Iron Age ritual enclosure" is actually a series of field drains with residual pottery.
Then you wait five years before finally receiving a pdf of a report (if your lucky) missing the matrix "cus you don't really need one on rural sites" and/or "the original PO did one but they left under a cloud (to join a rival unit in other words) and they "deliberately didn't hand over the projects properly". Further correspondence with the archaeologists pointing out the deficiencies of said report results in the statement that "it's all the bl**dy curators fault cus they discharged the condition and so the developers don't need to pay anymore" (completely misunderstanding basic planning legislation) and finally sullen silence,
until the next meeting.........
Are people happy with my characterisation? Or am I simply taking a general feeling of frustration about archaeology and blaming "others" who can be lumped together in a caricature daily mailesque way rather than responding properly?
:face-stir:
Steven