+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Starting Afresh (/showthread.php?tid=19)
Starting Afresh - Cautionary Tale - 13th October 2005
I agree with Troll: how about we collect reps from for example ALGAO, IFA, CBA and perhaps someone from the ODPM and bang their heads together. If someone will hold them still long enough, that looks like a decent forum: standards, code of conduct, pulic involvement and legistlation. Its a good dream.
Starting Afresh - the invisible man - 14th October 2005
Some months ago there was a thread asking what you would do if one morning you were put in charge of the IFA - specific actions, not vague generalisations (a la Rik Mayalls People's Poet - "when are we going to have a government that does something for the kids?") As far as I recall there was a deafening silence - but naturally I had my two penn'orth! (BAJR will explain what that is to you youngsters...).
It can't happen now that things have gone on too long but I'd like to see the whole concept of tendered/developer funded archaeology reconsidered.
As I've said before, it's a bit rich for the industry to demand that universities provide them with a free supply of ready-trained staff when it does nothing to help, train or fund the process, or to reward the products of the system.
How is David's East Lothian item 10 funded, I wonder, if you don't know what's there before you dig it up?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Starting Afresh - Sith - 14th October 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
As I've said before, it's a bit rich for the industry to demand that universities provide them with a free supply of ready-trained staff when it does nothing to help, train or fund the process, or to reward the products of the system.
Developer funded archaeology is by its very nature Developer funded. What more do you want? Granted, pay for field archaeologists is poor, but that is a problem that can only be addressed by the contracting units. After all (see elsewhere on this board ad nauseum), they are the ones setting Diggers wages, the levels of which are dictated by what they (the contractors) have asked for from the developer.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Not just there for the rotten things in life like a blocked wormhole
Starting Afresh - the invisible man - 14th October 2005
Err, yes, I think that's what I meant. In the scramble to win contracts, not only are wages as low as possible (obviously this is a supply and demand effect) but there is no funding (or profit, if you like, allowed for as an overhead) to pay for training of staff, whether in the form of placements or paid trainees or whatever. Yes, a couple of units offer unpaid placements to students on a Bradford placement year, for example, but this is something of a drop in the ocean and tends to be in specialist fields. But mostly they expect someone else to pick up the tab.
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
Starting Afresh - sniper - 15th October 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
What is the point of digging hundreds of skeletons?
erm, that would be to comply with the new EH/Church of England guidelines on best practice for treatment of human remains. That's like saying what's the point in digging up loads of bits of pot, or what's the point of recording those Roman walls properly. Human remains, disregarding the fact that they are the remains of once living people who deserve to be treated with respect, are a vital part of the archaeological record. That lovely glass vessel, or that fine bone pin that I'm sure you wouldn't even question the necessity to excavate and conserve properly, well, those skeletons, the people they once were, they made all those artefacts that some seem to believe should be treated with more care than the people themselves. Archaeology without a consideration of past peoples is, frankly, pointless, and can sometimes, naming no names, be reduced to a mad scramble for pretty things to stick in a museum cabinet.
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Starting Afresh - troll - 15th October 2005
Greetings Snipey. I have`nt got a hold of said new guidelines from English Heritics yet-is it true that now-all Human remains have to be removed from burial grounds before development can take place? Is there any new obligations in terms of funding for post-ex of said remains?
Good to hear from you mate-hope all is well.
Starting Afresh - sniper - 15th October 2005
The new guidelines only cover skeletons from Christian burial grounds, and it is rather a weighty tome, but it basically says that unless developers can mitigate the disturbance of human remains by changing their plans or rafting the site (the Home Office will not grant a licence for disturbance of human remains if the site is going to be piled), then all skeletons have to be fully excavated if they lie within the excavation area. This excavation also extends to recovering and wet-sieving the grave fill to recover small bones and teeth. In terms of post-excavation work, the developer has an obligation to provide funds for further work on the skeletons, at least upto the assessment phase, and onto analysis if the collection is deemed to be osteologically and archaeologically important (a decision that has to be made by the osteologist at the assessment phase) and also for the reburial (which cannot take place before the assessment phase has been completed, and should not take place if the collection is deemed as important) or long term storage of the collection.
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Starting Afresh - troll - 15th October 2005
Apologies invisible-only just seen your post about "if I were in charge of the IFA..."
1.fulfill obligations as mandated by ppg16 (maintain standards)
2.lobby vigorously for the replacement of guidence with legislation
3.re-assess the accreditation system
4.introduce accreditation for field archaeologists outside of the current three-tier system and reinforce the view that field archaeology is a specialism in its own right
5.have serious words with the culture minister
6.retract the view that most archs earn an average of 20k pa
7.listen to the industry view
8.push the state for further funding to facillitate the monitoring/enforcement of standards
9.fulfill the pledge to raise the value of archaeologists/archaeology in the eyes of the public
10.cease the practise of indulging in ten-year studies when issues are raised that require urgent attention
11.introduce industry-wide monitors (quality assurance) in line with other established professions
12.take part in BAJR discussions
13.attend the BAJR conference(s)
Starting Afresh - archae_logical - 16th October 2005
(It can't happen now that things have gone on too long but I'd like to see the whole concept of tendered/developer funded archaeology reconsidered)
I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.
Why can't it happen now [?] Nothing is ever set in stone it just needs the will of the people to change it.
Also why is it, in archaeology, guidelines are treated as guidance which can be ignored but in other areas as guidance that show best practice?
A very puzzled non-archaeologist onlooker }
Starting Afresh - Cautionary Tale - 16th October 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by archae_logicalWell, as I understand it, that is what used to happen before commercial units were around. Each region/city/county had its archaeological unit, there was even the fabled CAU (wasn't there?). They did work under the direction of the local authority archaeologist, but all that changed with PPG16. I believe that PPG16 is probably a good basis because it can oblige developers to give allowances to archaeology, the times when sites slip through the cracks are down to multiple applications (seen it many times) and human error }
I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.