22nd December 2012, 01:38 AM
WRT to the CIL-type levy, I think the developers will like it because when a big site comes up, the archaes tender to a central pot of money, controlled by a DCA or similar. The developers don't take a big hit, but they don't decide who gets to do the work. Got a lot more research to do yet, but reckon a less than 1% levy on all developments would easily pay for all the development-related archaeology needed. The intention is to set it so that there is enough money to do the job, the DCA dept sets the budget, and awards the tender on the quality of the PD, so the competition isn't financial. A few off the record chats with people have suggested that on some of the roads schemes in the last few years, even when there was loads of archaeology, it was less than 1% of the overall budget. The TAG paper is based on some data I've got from researching grey reports. Doing it in my spare time, but I've got plenty of that at the moment. Getting hold of data on cost is a lot harder!
Chris and I are considering organizing a one-day conference next year looking at alternative ways of doing commercial archaeology - not sure if it's feasible yet, and we don't want an extended moan-fest, altho we are trying to get people from inside commercial archaeology to present evidence showing it's all going to hell, which is what I'm doing with the grey report pottery survey at the moment. If people want to do papers anonymously, we'll get other people to read them, perhaps even non-archaeologists - obviously, we'd need to see them first! The starting point will be "this isn't working, what do we do?" - there's no intention to debate whether it's working properly or not. It's early days, and the mid-winter break is in the way at the moment, but I'd appreciate any thoughts that the poor buggers in the trenches have. Like I said, we're not interested in arguing about whether it's working or not, we're looking for alternatives. If anyone wants to PM me, feel free.
Chris and I are considering organizing a one-day conference next year looking at alternative ways of doing commercial archaeology - not sure if it's feasible yet, and we don't want an extended moan-fest, altho we are trying to get people from inside commercial archaeology to present evidence showing it's all going to hell, which is what I'm doing with the grey report pottery survey at the moment. If people want to do papers anonymously, we'll get other people to read them, perhaps even non-archaeologists - obviously, we'd need to see them first! The starting point will be "this isn't working, what do we do?" - there's no intention to debate whether it's working properly or not. It's early days, and the mid-winter break is in the way at the moment, but I'd appreciate any thoughts that the poor buggers in the trenches have. Like I said, we're not interested in arguing about whether it's working or not, we're looking for alternatives. If anyone wants to PM me, feel free.
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler