11th November 2011, 02:19 PM
Marcus Brody Wrote:I'm aware that this is something that I've said several times on a number of different threads, but I've never really understood why local societies would be so keen to work on development sites. It seems to me that the big advantage societies / amateurs have is that they can pick a nice site (a cropmark or earthwork, for example), ask the landowner's permission, and then dig it, with a fair degree of confidence that they'll actually find something interesting. Meanwhile, most professional archaeologists only get to work in areas where development is happening, which may not be where the archaeology is!
Yep. Spot on.( I'd love to dig where I wanted - as long as I had enough budget to do the post-ex properly, that is)
Not to mention all the boring and troublesome faff that comes with working in the real world like, contracts, CDM regulations, risk assessments, insurance, health and safety, timescales, coming in under the budget whilst still fully recording the significant archaeology, liasing with clients, being accountable for the quality of your work, having the resources to carry out cost-effective post-excavation and archiving...........:face-stir:
Being cheaper is not always the primary concern. You still have to adequately consult and fit into the clients work program and achieve set targets.
Commercial archaeology is a constant process of negotiation and assessment and re-assessment.
Not saying that all amateur archaeologists couldn't thrive under such circumstances......just MANY of those I have worked with were completely unprepared for the commercial world.
My favorite comment ever was.....'Oh, I didn't realise I had a limited amount of time to wash that pot.'