L. D Mouer schrieb:
> In all seriousness...this original query came to us as a query from a
> European colleague
 
ex-pat canadian, actually, but who's counting?
 
 I wonder if we can discuss, dispassionately, the history,
> present and future of contract archaeology without fighting all the old
> boring fights. That is: processual versus post, academics versus pros
> versus amateurs, theorists versus methodologists, field techs versus
> egghead academics, government agency archaeologists versus
> private-firm archaeologists versus academy archaeologists, etc.
>
i don't mind that: one of the problems i see here in germany is that these same
arguments are still making the rounds - the academics and the government
bureaucrats vs anyone without a degree or who wants to maybe make a decent
living (and not have to work on saturdays, or receive below minimum wages,
etc.), etc. etc. - the dating was sort of one of the first things on my list of
enquiries, because at least that's something you can put your finger on: i can
now go back to these guys who say contract archaeology started in england in the
 
1980s and say: wrong. Period. the next thing is to say look: these exact same
debates have been going on in the states and in canada and in england and in
switzerland and practically everywhere for the past 20-30 years: is germany
really such a special case that archaeologists here cannot learn from experience
 
gained elsewhere? i know that there are problems re professionalism and applying
 
theory and techniques and everything under the sun - and there always will be -
but i'm more concerned with the more mundane aspects of good excavation and
documentation techniques, and whatever policies/regulations need to be in place
and/or professional standards defined or whatever to ensure that we produce a
quality product - then if you want to do some post-modernist deconstructivist
interpretation with bells on, fine: go ahead - at least we've recovered the data
 
in such a way that it allows for interpretation and comparison and all the other
 
things we're supposed to be doing
        basically the problem seems to be that the government agencies don't
seem to be doing the job right, or can't afford to or whatever, and the private
firms are sometimes so driven by the need to make a profit that any claims of
"quality" ar just so much hot air (and the government agencies can't do
anything to police this) - so: what do we do about it?
 
> Clearly archaeology has benefitted very greatly from the "golden age" of
> CRM (which, I really believe, is quickly passing). Perhaps we are too
> close, too much involved in it. But a historical perspective would be
> helpful. We certainly have become fragmented. The professionalization of
> archaeology--the very things which lent success to many private firms
> (and, I would add, Tom, many business-wise university-based research
> centers) has also exacted a very great toll. We now have lots of people
> earning their livings as very competent archaeologists (by the standards
> of professionalism), but I wonder how much we are truly adding to
> knowledge and to public discourse as a result. History might help us
> understand our role and chart our future more wisely. Or not.
>
yeah, that's another tree i've been barking up: we are increasing the data base
with all our test pits and so on, but i think as a whole (at least here) we
haven't been very good at explaining/selling ourselves - big difference in
attitude between how investors will approach environmental impact surveys
(proudly proclaiming that they are "environmentally friendly" every chance they
get) and archaeological assesments all but fighting tooth and nail every inch of
 
the way) - we are doing our job, but are we doing it well?
 
ned's cynicism: Seems to me that there was a turning point in the history of
contract archaeology, when the money started flowing.
 
>Before that turning point, contracts responded to research needs and
resource conservation needs. Today, we too frequently do our thing because
the law requires a survey, or because there is money for testing, or
because the agency just wants to check off the "archaeology" box on the
project implementation checklist.
 
OK: how do we solve that? take every case to the courts (perhaps an independent
ombudsman?), to decide if testing/excavation is justified, or...?
 
>The nature of archaeology has changed. While we do lip service to the idea
of research design, regional research questions, and all the other
trappings of academic archaeology, we are in fact in the business of
providing "clearance" for somebody to build a wharf or a sewer line.
 
on one level i have no problem with that: this sewer is going to go right
through the middle of this medieval cemetery whether we do archaeological
excavation or not - so in that sense we might as well do it (or test and say
there's nothing there worth getting dirty about) - in this sense we're fairly
similar to the insurance industry (as i try to explain to the construction firms
 
i work with sometimes): don't get anything for your money if you don't have an
accident/site, but...
        the environmental impact people are also giving clearance for wharves
and sewers - we need wharves and sewers - and i've even been told that there are
 
no strictly research excavations here any more: anyone wants to excavate
something as an academic project can basically only get clearance to dig
something which is in one way or another threatened by development - "pure
research" in that sense is a luxury when so much other stuff is just being
bulldozed or quickly trashed - and hospitals and schools are being closed, etc.
 
>This isn't bad. Graveyards are being moved in a much more civilized way. We
have preserved vast quantities of raw data. Important sites are being
documented that would have been swept away. The Boston special issue of the
SHA journal that arrived yesterday is a stellar example of contract
archaeology contributing to civilization at its best.
 
>The Delaware Route 1 project (my bread and butter for years) has encouraged
real innovation, but not because of compliance. The DelDOT program is such
a success because the SHPO insisted on quality, and the state agency had no
choice but to comply. When it became apparent that they would be required
to comply, they resolved to do a really great job of it. The DelDOT program
is one of the success stories that have resulted from the regulatory
programs.
 
OK: now why is that the exception? we had a case here where a local savings and
loan decided to pay for publication of a large excavation we'd done; only
instructions were that it was supposed to be a quality report, well bound, which
 
they could hand out to various clients - why is that the exception? corporations
 
give millions to all kinds of charities, worry about working conditions in
southeast asia, and the effects their burgers are having on the ozone
layer, etc., trying to be "good corporate citizens" - how do we convince them
that archaeology is also important, that we/they shouldn't just be paying lip
service to the whole thing? are we somehow to blame for not explaining our case
properly or managing to rally enough public support that some local site gets as
 
much press as some local variety of barn owl?
 
>Someday the pipeline companies are going to notice that they have paid for
zillions of pointless interval test pits. Someday a politician looking for
budget cuts will notice a state curation facility. The bad dreams go on.
 
>There has been too much pointless survey mandated not by research needs and
legitimate archaeological concerns, but by the need to punch another item
on the punch list. Too much of the basis for contract archaeology is a
house of cards that will collapse, destroying with it the legitimate
archaeological concerns. The coming recession, which will tighten
everyone's purse strings, will undoubtedly lead the private developers to
look at ways to change the rules to eliminate costs. It is my fear that
archaeological and environmental regulations will be the first victims of
this belt-tightening.
 
exactly: so what are we going to do about it? how do we cut out the waste and
concentrate on legitimate concerns? i'm angry that government bureaucrats decide
 
what needs to be dug, that their decisions mean i have to stand there for months
 
on end with basically nothing to do, explaining to the construction workers that
 
it's not my fault, that somebody else decided, etc.: it's my job that's going to
 
be axed when the shit hits the fan, not the bureaucrat's - and not because of
anything i've done, but because of a legacy of bad bureaucracy - what should
i/we do about it?
 
>From a somewhat narrow perspective (which one could take from any number of
points of view), you are probably right Dan.  In this case, from the academic
perspective one might argue that certainly a lot less true "knowledge"  has
been added to the field of archaeology.  I do question the idea of public
discourse, though.  I believe it is because of CRM that we have the explosion
of interest in the field that is present today.  Virtually every state now has
an "archaeology week" or some equivalent and that is not a direct result of
government dogoodism.  CRM dollars have helped increase the numbers of
archaeology personnel in government and academia, CRM dollars have helped make
our field much more visible to the public as a result of our intervention in
project after project.  Occasionally we find a gem that excites the public's
imagination -- the interest, the public's hunger for more information about
archaeology has been fueled by this business.
 
we have the interest here, but it doesn't seem sustained: there are
documentaries on archaeology on one of the channels every week, but you still
get people yelling at you for tying up traffic when you get around to excavating
 
the local intersection - people visit the museums and attend lectures and every
year in september selected sites and monuments around europe are open for
viewing - but somehow that hasn't hit the corporate imagination the way concern
for the brazilian rainforest or greenhouse emissions has - erich von daniken
still probably outsells and outdraws anything archaeological here, for example -
 
i still think we're doing something wrong, and it's not quite time to start
patting ourselves on the back yet
 
>Now, in response to another point, there is much more to "professionalism" in
our field than academic excellence.  Even universities require that their
professors do community service of some sort or other in addition to teaching
and publishing.  One example of a broader definition of "professionalism" in
CRM is the current trend among some agencies to develop video and other media
materials about archaeology projects for public consumption.  This is laudable
and certainly should be considered a part of professionalism.  In fact, there
are probably many projects where the main product should be a video or a
popular brochure or book, rather than a technical report read by 6 people, if
that many (and those 6 people probably read it only because they are being
paid to do it).  There are agencies beginning to require just this sort of
thing.  I think we should broaden our scope of understanding about
"professional".  It is to our peril and livelihoods if we do not.  Perhaps the
"golden age" of CRM has yet to appear, if only we have the will and the
creativity to make our field more "user friendly" to the public at large.
 
precisely - someone in england is doing a survey of just who reads these bloody
reports - and would it be better to publish them all online or on cd-rom or what
 
- get them all out there in the open as opposed to just cluttering up some musty
 
shelves in the back rooms of some dusty archives somewhere...
 
geoff carver
[log in to unmask]
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/