21st February 2013, 01:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 21st February 2013, 01:57 PM by GnomeKing.)
""Archives should be the responsibility of the client"" - er no. Clearly that is madness.
Archives should be for the public good, and commercial contracts should be about that. ... As should the IFA Code...
If a a development is subject to planning conditions, then the archives must be public - an archaeologists position as a member of the IFA should come before any clients desire for non-public archives relating to a public planning decision.
Archives are very clearly the responsibility of the commercial archaeological unit producing them - public services will of course offer opinion and guidance on material to retain.....but YOU doing the fieldwork and post-ex are supposed to be bloody experts yourselves! > why is materiel often so badly thought through and organized? Why are you still collecting too much crap with no reserch potential (often directly because your own poor records and investigative standards). Not enough good stuff that is useable >>> none of this helps, especially when council services are so massively underfunded.
Underfunding is the key problem here - as Kevin points out, Wiltshire has plenty of space...(and a world heritage site F[SIZE=1]FS[/SIZE])
However: Companies have been neglecting archives for years - the whole issue has been allowed to backlog right across the sector.
What is to be done?:
There should be clear contractual obligations for commercial companies to follow through on their projects. A company should effectively be bankrupt before a council accepts an incomplete commercial archive, or one which clearly has not followed some kind of researched strategy.
The IFA urgently needs to pull its finger-out and help address the quality of archives being deposited : quality and coherence of records, quality and rational of assemblages formed, > is the right material being retained? is there a research framework the material can address?
Individuals from all levels (ie diggers to shiny-arsed-scribblers) need to stop the ""i don't care - i am just going to put it in a bag/file for somebody else to deal with"" attitude. Take the time to educate yourself if necessary.
Why should our tax money subsidize profits for private executives who have not dealt with this issue?
""In my view it is up to museums to decide what they should take or keep - it is our job to offer it."" - er no. Utter Rubbish.
a museum and a professional organization should pretty much coincide in their valuation of the material and archives - that is assuming the museum has the necessary archaeological expertise (which need not be the case).
However, it is an absolute given that the professional archaeological company should have all the necessary expertise to find out about the value of the material they have been payed to collect!!!
Ps ML: persuaded by professionals...and...up to museums themselves ... are absurdly contradictory sentiments in relation to a productive way forward. that is impressive for the same paragraph...is there another point you are trying to make?
Archives should be for the public good, and commercial contracts should be about that. ... As should the IFA Code...
If a a development is subject to planning conditions, then the archives must be public - an archaeologists position as a member of the IFA should come before any clients desire for non-public archives relating to a public planning decision.
Archives are very clearly the responsibility of the commercial archaeological unit producing them - public services will of course offer opinion and guidance on material to retain.....but YOU doing the fieldwork and post-ex are supposed to be bloody experts yourselves! > why is materiel often so badly thought through and organized? Why are you still collecting too much crap with no reserch potential (often directly because your own poor records and investigative standards). Not enough good stuff that is useable >>> none of this helps, especially when council services are so massively underfunded.
Underfunding is the key problem here - as Kevin points out, Wiltshire has plenty of space...(and a world heritage site F[SIZE=1]FS[/SIZE])
However: Companies have been neglecting archives for years - the whole issue has been allowed to backlog right across the sector.
What is to be done?:
There should be clear contractual obligations for commercial companies to follow through on their projects. A company should effectively be bankrupt before a council accepts an incomplete commercial archive, or one which clearly has not followed some kind of researched strategy.
The IFA urgently needs to pull its finger-out and help address the quality of archives being deposited : quality and coherence of records, quality and rational of assemblages formed, > is the right material being retained? is there a research framework the material can address?
Individuals from all levels (ie diggers to shiny-arsed-scribblers) need to stop the ""i don't care - i am just going to put it in a bag/file for somebody else to deal with"" attitude. Take the time to educate yourself if necessary.
Why should our tax money subsidize profits for private executives who have not dealt with this issue?
""In my view it is up to museums to decide what they should take or keep - it is our job to offer it."" - er no. Utter Rubbish.
a museum and a professional organization should pretty much coincide in their valuation of the material and archives - that is assuming the museum has the necessary archaeological expertise (which need not be the case).
However, it is an absolute given that the professional archaeological company should have all the necessary expertise to find out about the value of the material they have been payed to collect!!!
Ps ML: persuaded by professionals...and...up to museums themselves ... are absurdly contradictory sentiments in relation to a productive way forward. that is impressive for the same paragraph...is there another point you are trying to make?