29th August 2012, 08:06 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:TMSArch - sorry I was just trying to be inclusive before someone wrote in suggesting I was trying to get curators sacked!! I totally agree that a lot of commercial archaeologists would have more interesting and intellectually rewarding lives if they were to be working for the equivalent of the old LA units - so roll on the day!!
Dinosaur - I don't blame either curators or commercial archaeologists. They are both working within a pretty bizarre system....I was merely commenting that the previous system wasn't broke, despite the claims that it needed to be fixed!! I attended the IFA general meeting back in the late 80s where 'laissez faire' archaeological practice was approved by the 'self regulating' archaeology industry. I can still see the smug looks on the smug faces of those unit managers who in a couple of hours destroyed most of the local units in the UK for the sake of their own expansionist fiefdoms. I was one of the few opponents at that meeting. I described them as a bunch of travel agents masquerading as loss adjusters (I hope that made it into the minutes of the meeting!!)....I don't think subsequent events have proven me wrong...
Thanks Kevin - my response was meant to be entirely tongue in cheek - just wanted to highlight the fact that there are two sides to every coin. Likewise for every story I read on here about curators making bizarre decisions, having odd standards, asking for pointless work, I could equally tell one about poor standards from field archaeologists, bizarre excavation practices, dodgy health and safety and time wasting decisions/activity. Neither side of the coin is perfect, but it seems odd that some on this forum single out curatorial standards as poor, when not accepting field archaeologists can be as - sometimes more - guilty of some of the bad practices that curators get branded with
Personally I would have no objection to a system where archaeology (re)turned to a system that meant that local knowledge, experience and expertise could be fostered and developed; where those undertaking the fieldwork had an interest in promoting and sharing their work with the community that they were a part of; where links could be better established between field units and local societies, local universities and colleges to share knowledge; and where archaeologists could develop their own knowledge and skills in a more structured way with more security about where they would be based and the social and personal advantages this would bring. If this means a move to a regional/council/city/district unit based system then so be it.
I've worked across the country on commercial sites previously, but for the last 12 years I've also had the pleasure of being able to work and live in one county - initially working for a commercial unit and latterly at a county advisory service. I've learnt more about the archaeology of my area in the past ten or so years than I could ever hope to do working for a unit tendering for work across the country - something I have found personally rewarding. I also count myself lucky to have been able to pursue archaeology as a career and put roots down and settle somewhere. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive and a move towards area/regionally based units could, perhaps, help to address many of the complaints that many people have about the current life of a field archaeologists.