10th November 2011, 02:29 PM
seems to me that anybody wanting to build an extension to their home on a SAM such as a Roman town etc might well find that the archaeological costs effectively double the cost of the extension. this is one way of restricting development and it is no good for professionals who wont get the work based on cost and it is not surprising if mr and mrs normal get a bit peeved and write to their elected member - and not then surprising if local amateurs feel they could help out.
the problem is that the local amateurs might not be able to do the job properly and are unlikely to be able to do the specialist bits for free (a few might be able to write a pot report etc but most wont) and will have to pay specialists the same as we do. SMC would require best practice and can stipulate who can and who cant do the work but LAs cant on unscheduled sites.
amateur groups are likely to be entitled to do any dev con work they can get so long as they adhere to the same rules and standards we do
therefore we should now be insisting that to do dev con work all archaeologists should be RO and RO status should be more difficult to get than currently is the case
the problem is that the local amateurs might not be able to do the job properly and are unlikely to be able to do the specialist bits for free (a few might be able to write a pot report etc but most wont) and will have to pay specialists the same as we do. SMC would require best practice and can stipulate who can and who cant do the work but LAs cant on unscheduled sites.
amateur groups are likely to be entitled to do any dev con work they can get so long as they adhere to the same rules and standards we do
therefore we should now be insisting that to do dev con work all archaeologists should be RO and RO status should be more difficult to get than currently is the case
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers