Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
1st November 2005, 11:14 PM
Is`nt it the case that ppg 16 has opened the door to watered down cut-price hit and run archaeology? Hmmmmm, let me see....big powerful developer....small obliging survivalist arch units....
Optional standards...plenty of complacent/lethargic curators(extremely good but under-resourced ones notwithstanding)...some extremely dubious consultants....aloof and badly informed planning committees.....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
1st November 2005, 11:58 PM
and just what is it going to do when the development for the Olympics starts? Minister for Culture, Media and Sport. good combination guys, I wonder just what is going to win there...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
2nd November 2005, 03:03 PM
Quote:quote:Is`nt it the case that ppg 16 has opened the door to watered down cut-price hit and run archaeology? Hmmmmm, let me see....big powerful developer....small obliging survivalist arch units....
Originally posted by Troll
Quote:quote:I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer
Orignally posted by Archae_logical
Try looking at some published 'rescue' excavations from before PPG16, as I have done while writing up more recent excavations, or talk to people (like me) who worked in rescue archaeology before PPG16. What you will find is that, because the excavations were publicly funded, budgets were much tighter than now, so the excavations were much smaller and usually to a much lower standard. There was also much more selection - many sites just went by the board, with no mitigation at all. And, of course, there was no evaluation, so only sites that were already well-known were even considered.
For all its faults, PPG16 has hugely improved the quality and quantity of archaeological work in the development process. Evaluation (largely a creation of PPG16) means that local authorities have more information before they grant planning permission; developer funding means that they are more willing to impose conditions for mitigation excavation; and the curators are much more powerful than before.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2005, 04:21 PM
Hmmm...
Quote:quote:I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.
Er, excuse me but this is exactly how the system
does work now. An independent archaeological company does the work, the county archaeologist monitors it and the developer pays for it. Anything that is found is 'reported immediately' to the county archaeologist, who is an 'appropriate person' who decides what the response will be. Monitoring visits by the county archaeologist on most projects I am involved with take place every week. A solution is arrived at which preserves archaeology either in situ or by record, at the cost of the developer, but still enabling the development (and the economic, social etc. benefits which accrue from development) to occur.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
2nd November 2005, 10:11 PM
i have to agree, from my recent experience of working with material from a pre-PPG16 rescue excavation, that things have improved, at least in terms of treatment and assessment/analysis of the material. The stuff I have been working on has been out of the ground for over 30 years, but has never been looked at, and could only now be looked at because of external funding. That, at least, would not happen now...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd November 2005, 09:37 PM
I have no issue with the concept that ppg16 has improved things from what they were. Arguably, we live longer now than we did in the days of the industrial revolution-and?
ppg is full of holes, is 25 years old, is exploited to the full and needs to evolve.Just because things are better than they were, why stop evolving? We`d still be crawling out of primordeal sludge if we all decided everythings rosey as it is.........it`s not, by a very long way.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
3rd November 2005, 09:41 PM
of course I'm not suggesting that PPG is wonderful, fantastic and shouldn't change, not least in becoming more than just "guidance", which can easily be ignored. I suppose at least the material from pre-PPg days was stored until something could be done with it, now it would probably be reburied with the specialists's advice being ignored
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
4th November 2005, 02:29 PM
Sniper,
I know of at least one case from pre-PPG16 days where all the pot and stone artefacts from a site that had produced lorry-loads (literally) was sold as construction aggregate. I suppose you could call that a form of storage...
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
4th November 2005, 04:27 PM
Troll - as said elsewhere PPG16 is still only a young teenager
Sniper - I guess that you are alluding to your precious skellies re burying of material. The only cases of re-burial I have come across in my work is of the sticky vicar variety - very rare. Would like to know of examples though. I think that under current guidelines (though not explicitly stated) once a cemetery population has been deemed worthy of osteological analysis it is deemed worthy of curation (following arguments for advance in science in the future etc). In my areas of work I have found that once something is in a bag and labelled it is very difficult to discard.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
4th November 2005, 08:48 PM
achingknees, I know of at least 2 examples where skeletal material has been designated for reburial after analysis, even though the osteologist advised that they were scientifically important collections and should be curated for further study. If you would like to know more please email me through here and I can give you details.
1man, I also know of a pre-PPG site where much material was stored by being buried in a large hole...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
