Archaeology: Hidden treasure - Grey Literature

[BAJR]

I never knew that I did not know that!


Funny though that archaeology seems destined to circle around its own corpse

[GnomeKing]

To return to the first post and Proffesor Bradleys paper.....

I have sat and disscussed aspects of these issues with Richard - i feel duty bound to piont out that IMHO he is a most affable host, and that also rather modest about his work. I would suggest that people examaine the full range of this corpus before asserting that academics try to avoid "uncomfortable" data or interpretations. Some of his early site reports in particular made attempts (which he is dissmissive of now) to excavate, quantify, and interpret in ways that just would not be done now - and they are all the better for it.
Similar attempts today by commercial companies would be dissmissed out of hand as going too far beyond The (minimal) Requirments.

Other academic works are indeed wide ranging and 'exotic' - they are also brave, and attempts to push boundaries, not desinged to meet requirments or flog dead horses.

Persons advocating Research focused excavtion (rather than just meeting minimal Requirments) are mocked as being too far removed from the 'real world' to be fully 'competent' in the Commercial World

An excavtor who is able to percieve the tenuous, elongated, and elaborate material strands of historical inquiry, in thier hands and before thier eyes, risks being lablled as unable to 'focus' on managment-set tasks, as being prone to 'over-complicating' the archaeology, as taking too long to produce records and recording superfluous information, as being intoxicated or 'off-thier-head', and as being seen as somebody who might be occasionaly useful, but whose opinion never needs to be taken seriously.

There is indeed a huge gulf to be bridged between Commercial Minimum Standards and Viable Continuing Research...Indeed, some academics may, through design or circumstance, have neglected the growing mass of commercial grey literature. This,however, is at odds with my personal experience withinin academia and of individual academic archaeologists.

I would go as far to say that the biggest problem is that commercial 'data' is all too often hard to decipher in terms of method, rationale, formal logic, and frequently it is far too thin in the areas that really matter...
The process is not one using high quality commercial data for academic ends, but rather one of salvaging data and clues from reports that should have been far better to begin with, given the time and money spent on them. Given that a researcher must wade through a lot of porridge to find a nut, and once found, will likley lament the cheap and cheery recipe of the dish, it is any wonder that trying to use commercial data for pure academic research is a rather disspiriting prospect?

I would guese that if surveyed, academic archaeoogists might overwhelmingly agree that Commercial Standards of primary data collection (including all aspects of Fieldwork) are amienable to improvemnet, perhapes even seriously in need thereof...should this be an opinion taht the Commercial Sector can simply ignor?
Given that some of the finest field archaeoogists are now firmly within 'academia', i think perhapes not...
Indeed if 'Proffesionalisation' of commercial archaeology is sought, then might not a move towards higher, academically verifiable standards be of great assistance?...even if this might cause some discomfort for Commercial Directorships.

Yes - Ok there have been good high/medium profile commercial projects with important research conclusions - but mainly this has occured through the particpation of academics and 'specialists' in the project - ie not at all seperate to 'academia'.
Indeed, having been involved in comparable situations, a specialist must be on thier toes the whole time to avoid the gross misunderstandings and laughable idiocies of interpretation taht can sometimes arise from the 'proffesional' excavtion teams. A 'specialist' will also likley find Willing Ears for 'factoids' that seem obviously of merit to the excavation team, and perhapes wonder why nobody else had previously known them....

In short, while it may useful to rember that a "problem shared is a problem halved", the greater portion must fall here with the Commercial Sector, and not 'the academics'. The is ridiculous to suggest that academics have ignored grey literature for thier own ends, expecpt perhapes to save themselves a dissapionting trudge through half baked analysis and data of questionable quality and unverifiable consistencey.
Naturally academia tends toward projects where there is more controll of the primary data - but academic archaeologists are not at all disinterested in Comercial Grey Literautre...far from it...
Commercial archaeologists do themselves a great disservice and injury by opening a divide between Commercial and Academic practice -
... there could also be greater attempts to secure Research Funding to deal directly with the results of ongoing and recent commercial excavtions, as Academia and the whole British Archaeological Research Endevour are also poorley served by a divide with current data, as recoverd by the Commercial Sector.

Interesting threads of anlysis are truncated by methodological dullness and viable data is ruined by unverifiable consistencey - that is the dissapointing fact of 'grey literature research'...it is a shame...it should not be this way...

Until 'Minimum Standards' as stand at present are exceeded, then there will remain a congealing, unexamianed, cold-grey gruel of reports. If it is not being used, the Commercial Sector needs to adress Why...

[trowelmonkey]

That was a very thoughtful piece, GnomeKing. Broadly speaking, as self-avowedly on the scholarly spectrum of commercial archaeology, I agree with you.

A well informed digger on a site can be a very troublesome thing I don't actually mean the rate excavation per se. I have said so on BAJR before, "commercial diggers" generally dig and record faster than "academic diggers" through being more practiced at their craft. They also generally "see" the archaeology better too. Everybody expects a professional chef or tailor to be more efficient than most home cooks or seamtresses/ seamsters (okay, so the word doesn't exist, but I like it) even when the end result is as good. I've found that university staff tend to grossly underestimate what is recoverable through excavation.

The well informed digger is a pain in the backside when they realise the importance of what they're digging when all the pressure is on them is to find what the DBA said they'd find and precious little else. That sort of academic archaeologist is as annoying as the ones who see features exceptionally well. (Again, I don't mean the ones who need to record every clast or worm cast. Part of "seeing is understanding site formation, seeing the "grammar and syntax of the feature".)

My biggest complaint about "grey literature" is that it is very difficult to evaluate what a site report contains without reading it in full. Way back when I was researching my MA, I was adamant that I wanted to test my hypotheses against the most up-to-date data. Fortunately for me, my geographical region was restricted, as I trawled through over 300 site reports in 4 months yielding only about 40 of which turned out to be relevant and about a dozen really interesting. Partly this was down to how things are recorded in SMRs/HERs, but even more so due to the report writers themselves often not realising the import of what they'd recorded/ the unit a template, rigidly not allowing for any intellectual interpretation of the data set.

Academic writing is periodically aggregated into summary bibliographies which are very useful for locating information. (Some disciplines are better than others.) These have been built in fits and starts over a long period of time as funding (provided by many institutions) becomes available and the backlog pressing. Given the rapid advances in IT data systems I hope that in twenty years time, commercial archaeology will become even more searcher friendly. Seeing the progress RCAHMS in particular has made in the last ten years actually makes me optimistic.

At least I had the advantage of reading site reports before I started uni. Sometimes I wonder if many academics seem to shy away from the raw data because nobody has walked them through one before.

Now, coming on to those crisps I've been salivating over ever since they were first mentioned....

First thing first. Copyright really has to be sorted out. I pay a lot of money annually use my local university library. In doing so, I also understand that students and staff always have priority over me, and quite rightly too. But, in this shiny new electronic world the library has jettisoned many volumes, including site reports covering landmark sites. The library has also sent books and journals into remote storage. I cannot request the books, but I can visit them during quite restricted hours with plenty of prior notice. Seriously, it's easier to access the collecting libraries.

Even more alarming, many journals have been gotten rid of entirely in their physical form and can now only be accessed via Athens. The Athens agreement does not allow non-students to access these electronic copies. Not even only in the library in a non-printable version. Not even an alumna, like me, who additionally pays for borrowing rights. !

Then there's the whole image copy right issue. Last year I down-loaded a report from ads from the 70's where the image creator had not been located. It's very difficult to read a report on beads with all the graphics greyed out!

Yes, many papers can be bought from journals individually, but the average ?15 - 20 each hinders research. Prices like these are taking the piss when an entire journal can often be bought for less second hand.

As an addendum, I greatly admire Richard Bradley for his bravery to not only clearly presenting his ideas in the first person, but also for being so open about the evolution of his thinking when so many of us (academic and commercial) are forced into artificially defending entrenched positions. He is also very generous with his intellect and time.

[GnomeKing]

beautifully put....accese for non-students is a real issue...just being trying to refresh myself on sinkholes and things i want to look at are temptingly presented only to be snatched away by unafforable subscription fees...perhapes group reduction/subscription for the IFA and members?

[Dinosaur]

'Commercial' archaeologists would take 'academic' archaeologists rather more seriously if they, eg, stopped describing a dead sheep in a ditch as a 'structured deposit' - get a life, it's a dead sheep in a ditch, Cumbria's full of them

[Sparky]

Hello GnomeKing,
While I agree with most of your comments particularly that standards of recording are in need of improvement, I would strongly argue, and agree with Trowelmonkey, that the finest field archaeologists are those who undertake fieldwork everyday of their lives. Without repeating Trowelmonkey, it purely stands to reason that they have more experience than academics in the field. Infact, in my experience, academic excavators cause themselves a lot of problems simply because they are inexperienced excavators, such as ranging from not writing WSIs and getting into bother with county archaeologists, to finding themselves panicing when sites become more complex, significant and expensive than anticipated. To be further fair on the archaeological workforce, academics tend to use student archaeologists supervised by slightly more experienced students who would not normally have the experience that diggers have in the ‘real world’. Perhaps one should look at the primary records of academic excavations and compare with those in the commercial sector.
On the subject of reporting, both academic and commercial reports will have endured a degree of bias within the interpretations. But any researcher of any worth should recognise that useful data will be found in the stratigraphy report and drawings from where new conclusions can be drawn. This data is by no mean unbiased having been ‘civilised’ by the magic post-ex pen. In which case, researchers need to access the paper site archive which should be housed in the local HER.

[BAJR]

So here we come up with a stunning opportunity!

What if the best of the best, work for the best of the research? Why not use both skills? Dinosaurs example is proof (if proof be needed) that a good excavator still finds only a sheep in a ditch... a good synthesising researcher/academic can pull the pieces together to form theories (utilisng the coal nugget of factual information collected by the excavator to fuel the process of theoretical creation) Without either one, we end up with a heap of coal that nobody wants and/or a powerstation of theory that sits idle and empty.

So where do we stand?

I do wish that Academics would open up a bit, they have decent pay and conditions and are more than happy to use the fieldworker (the ones that do it for a living, not swan off for 2 months to Chiatishire to watch students prod a villa) for the primary information. These reports are lost and hidden as much as Grey Lit is.
On the other side, I wish commercial archaeologists could write decent reports.. most are so short or grammatically suspect that they make no sense. Or just pad out to make the report look bigger... if it is a null report, why is nothing found? Don't just say Nothing found...
If a track goes out of the development area, feel a little pride in at least mentioning where it goes to... Don't say things like The Diary was used for Dairy related activities and products..... Tell the facts and the truth... a stone is a stone... it is not a ritual alter.
However, be prepared to opine.

anyway

[trowelmonkey]

As unbelievable as it sounds, I can produce legible copy if I get to edit on paper! I don't know what it is, but I find spelling error and dropped words difficult to spot on a screen.

Totally agree with you that one has to define nothing and give some indication as to why one believes there aren't any archaeological remains. After all, the site got so far as to opening the ground with an archaeologist present, so something was expected. I've always said that archaeology's like maths. You have to show your workings.

What really frustrates me is the overly rigid report templates some units insist on. There have been times I've wanted to say more, because there have been interesting things to say which put the findings into perspective. I've known this as I've done the background research. Saying that it's not relevant because the track's destination is 250m beyond the limit of excavation or that social history isn't in the report remit to save on 200 - 700 words' worth of ink is really crass.

[Dinosaur]

I'm clearly lucky in working for a unit where we're actually encouraged (within reason and as long as it doesn't cost too much) to attempt to put some 'academic' percentage into reports, although to be fair there's some commercial mileage in that, quality work does get rewarded occasionally with recommendations etc resulting in more work, there's plenty of contracts out there that don't get put out to tender, or if they are it's just for the look of the thing....

[BAJR]

Don't think you are lucky, just fairly normal... I have read a couple of your reports.. [ don't worry... no names no packdrills. ] Good solid reports .. perfect commercial archaeology documents. To the point, concise, a map with info on it, and a bit of interpretation.

Its a good standard document that is fit for purpose - would have passed under my nose and been approved (bet that makes tou happy ) But...putting "academic" into a report is a whole different ball game.... I am sure you would agree. ITs not that its not possible, but the timescales, the work required, the synthesis the comparative methodologies and cross referencing.. yipes... its all or nothing as a Partner of mine once said ( I'll save his blushes, but needless to say, he put so much into a report, tracking down quarry typologies and tracing routes of stone production and transportation and even listing 18th century parties that took place in the structure, that we went so over time that we may as well have done the job for nothing... I was almost on my knees trying to explain that every extra day was costing us money! ) As it happens, they are amazing reports, over 250 pages plus further Appendices... BUT hopeless in the Commercial World.

Can you do a bit... well... you may be right... but all I would like to see is an attempt to view the site as a whole and as part of... rather than an isolated element divorced from time and space. I'll leave the academicing to the academics :face-thinks:


Oh...and I would agre that good work.. or best value... does count for something more than cheapest.