 |
 |
I am rather surprised that no one else has seen fit to expand the case for Research Frameworks in response to John Woods' comments. So in the absence of a more heavy weight champion: It starts from the premise that archaeology is primarily an academic discipline. On that basis the main role of the curatorial archaeologist is to ensure that there is a satisfactory balance between the conservation and recording of physical remains, and to ensure that where physical remains are destroyed an adequate record is made of them. In England (and I suspect this applies to Scotland & Wales also) the vast majority of archaeological recording is now carried out in the context of development control. This work is funded almost exclusively by developers (Bob's Sides 'enforced sponsors'). This means that a considerable amount archaeological fieldwork is being carried out. It also means that this fieldwork is being directed towards the sites developers wish to develop and not necessarily by the questions that the archaeological world wish to have answered. Curatorial archaeologists play a pivotal role in advising planning authorities as to which sites should be preserved and what level of recording is necessary at the remainder (This is not to say that the advice is always followed!). However, curators are at least one remove from the questions that are being asked in the academic world. In the absence of any external input there is at least the possibility that curators may either seek to record all and sundry or tend to favour their own specialist interests. The aim of establishing research frameworks is to allow the wider archaeological world to have an input into this process, by providing a method by which academics, professional field archaeologists and the informed amateur can inform curators as to which areas warrant detailed research and which do not. John is correct in pointed out that any research framework has to be thoroughly thought through. It should not merely replace the interests of a handful of curators with those of a small group of specialist academics. Neither should it be a wish list of the 'we want to know more about the Palaeoloithic/Industrial Revolution/ or whatever ...' kind. There has to be some attempt to match the questions being asked in the wider archaeological world with the capacity of the archaeological record in any given area to answer them. He is also right in pointing out that once a framework has been devised it must be capable of responding to new paradigms. It has to be under constant review, in a similar way to planning authorities have to keep updating their local and strategic plans. I believe research frameworks are a 'good thing'. I also think frameworks are best worked out at a regional level. Individual local authority areas have archaeological 'constituencies' that are too limited for a realistic dialogue to take place, and are probably too small in extent to provide answers to worthwhile questions. The problem in this region, the West Midlands, is that we are experiencing difficulty with establishing the dialogue between the curators and the wider archaeological world. CBA West Midlands recently sent out a draft research framework to over 50 groups and individuals. There were only six responses and all but two of these were from curators. I can understand that amateurs might be too shy to 'telling the professionals how to do their job', but can the same be the said for the our colleagues, the archaeological contractors and academic archaeologists?