10th September 2009, 01:09 PM
I think only archaeologists could over complicate things this much. I would quite happily say to a developer that it is being carried out because the planners say it has to be. Anything else just confuses the issue. Do people who carry out bat surveys or assessments of the impact on badgers worry about the divorce between academic and commercial archaeology, the philosophy of branding, or how much public support they have.
On the subject of archaeology's natural ally in public support, that's great, but public support isn't going to pay the sort of costs of are currently ploughed into commercial work. Developers can afford it. The public might like archaeology but if you told them that they had to pay ?50 to visit every EH site in order to pay for development control work, or that they had to pay extra tax to cover it they would probably find they were a lot less interested all of a sudden. Is HLF funding an answer? I don't think so, besides which that's effectively a tax on the desperate that pays for the reasonably well off to have fun.
On the subject of archaeology's natural ally in public support, that's great, but public support isn't going to pay the sort of costs of are currently ploughed into commercial work. Developers can afford it. The public might like archaeology but if you told them that they had to pay ?50 to visit every EH site in order to pay for development control work, or that they had to pay extra tax to cover it they would probably find they were a lot less interested all of a sudden. Is HLF funding an answer? I don't think so, besides which that's effectively a tax on the desperate that pays for the reasonably well off to have fun.