4th September 2006, 10:08 PM
I have to say that I think that Badger is talking naive xxxxxxxs and
misses the point. Archaeologists are not qualified to be surveyors or comment on contamination. The waste comes from not ensuring that the different studies are not co-ordinated.
As for guide prices who will set them? Curators? The IFA? BAJR? Consultants? A totally pointless exercise that any consultant worth his salt can do this in his head.
See you in the Conference.
Dr Peter
Back to Troll's question. Interesting one. To achieve what? Better archaeology (you know studying the past the thing we used to do before we had to dig pointless trenches). Better pay for archaeologist?
The time could be right with major changes to the planning system having come in last month and more planned in the next year or so.
But be warned developers are starting to revolt. Are we that sure that society is willing to pay the amount that they do for archaeology. A major publicity campaign could be counter productive with government deciding that archaeology is not worthwhile or there are more important items on the aggenda.
Do we give everybody value for money from the 100 million we spend on archaeology. Ultimately it is us, society, who pay for archaeology via taxs for the curatorial services and as consummers particularly via our pension fund investments. Who should pay for the outreach and the syntectic publications?
The new development control system is a joke. Why does a statement saying the design has taken account of access for the disabled have to be produced to install CC TV cameras. (a real example of a real project).
The requirements of the planning system for some types of historic building now devalues the return on investment to such an extent that there adaptation is at best marginal and thus putting under threat 10000s of thousands of listed buildings.
Back to the conference paper.
misses the point. Archaeologists are not qualified to be surveyors or comment on contamination. The waste comes from not ensuring that the different studies are not co-ordinated.
As for guide prices who will set them? Curators? The IFA? BAJR? Consultants? A totally pointless exercise that any consultant worth his salt can do this in his head.
See you in the Conference.
Dr Peter
Back to Troll's question. Interesting one. To achieve what? Better archaeology (you know studying the past the thing we used to do before we had to dig pointless trenches). Better pay for archaeologist?
The time could be right with major changes to the planning system having come in last month and more planned in the next year or so.
But be warned developers are starting to revolt. Are we that sure that society is willing to pay the amount that they do for archaeology. A major publicity campaign could be counter productive with government deciding that archaeology is not worthwhile or there are more important items on the aggenda.
Do we give everybody value for money from the 100 million we spend on archaeology. Ultimately it is us, society, who pay for archaeology via taxs for the curatorial services and as consummers particularly via our pension fund investments. Who should pay for the outreach and the syntectic publications?
The new development control system is a joke. Why does a statement saying the design has taken account of access for the disabled have to be produced to install CC TV cameras. (a real example of a real project).
The requirements of the planning system for some types of historic building now devalues the return on investment to such an extent that there adaptation is at best marginal and thus putting under threat 10000s of thousands of listed buildings.
Back to the conference paper.