20th September 2012, 08:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 20th September 2012, 08:30 AM by kevin wooldridge.)
Hei Troll....I suspect that the answer is relatively simple, but in its simplicity, at least in the UK, unachievable. Take the Norwegian scenario. All heritage assets over a certain age are automatically protected by law. Developers can apply for a dispensation to the heritage protection law but if granted are normally expected to bear the full cost of evaluation and/or excavation and/or conservation. The costs of archaeology are controlled by contractors being limited as to what services they can charge developers or sponsors. Charges such as wages, expenses, machine hire are allowable (although sponsors are allowed to supply site huts, machinery etc if they believe it works out cheaper than the estimate by the archaeological contractor). Charges such as business related overheads are not. The number of archaeological contractors allowed to discharge archaeological conditions are strictly limited and all contractors are tied to museums or universities. Pay levels for archaeological staff are tied to a national payscale and are directly comparable to equivalantly qualified professionals. Normal entry grade for professional archaeologist is a Masters qualification.
I am not sure that controlling the means of production is a direct analogy in the Norwegian archaeological scenario as the Norwegian heritage law makes it clear that the archaeological resource is a nationally owned asset, irrespective as to who owns the land. I guess the nearest equivalent in UK terms would be to effectively 'nationalise' archaeology.....once you accept that principle, managing archaeology becomes as simple as managing any other state owned asset, the NHS, the Royal Bank of Scotland for example.....
PS I would suggest that a revised UK system also introduces a system of state run archaeological gulags, not for members of the public that offend against the system, but for all those archaeologists who beleve that competition is an effective way of managing a limited social asset. They could all fight over the one loaf of bread thrown over the fence every morning before going off to hoe baked in London Clay for 10 hours a day.....(wouldn't mind betting however that within a few hours someone would have established a consultancy!!)....
I am not sure that controlling the means of production is a direct analogy in the Norwegian archaeological scenario as the Norwegian heritage law makes it clear that the archaeological resource is a nationally owned asset, irrespective as to who owns the land. I guess the nearest equivalent in UK terms would be to effectively 'nationalise' archaeology.....once you accept that principle, managing archaeology becomes as simple as managing any other state owned asset, the NHS, the Royal Bank of Scotland for example.....
PS I would suggest that a revised UK system also introduces a system of state run archaeological gulags, not for members of the public that offend against the system, but for all those archaeologists who beleve that competition is an effective way of managing a limited social asset. They could all fight over the one loaf of bread thrown over the fence every morning before going off to hoe baked in London Clay for 10 hours a day.....(wouldn't mind betting however that within a few hours someone would have established a consultancy!!)....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...