How the west was won (by commercial archaeology)

[diggingthedirt]

There's a gun-fight going down on diggingthedirt:

http://www.diggingthedirt.com/2010/09/16...chaeology/

Any of you hip young gunslingers want in on the action?

[BAJR]

God-dam-ya! I have just read it all, and then came here to point people to it... and have made it into an article on the front page too http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/content.php?226...aeology%29 ! THen I get here, and you have already been here and done it... darnit!!!

Me, I am - polishing my six gun.... and getting ready for the showdown... This is a challenge that has to be read first... :face-approve:

[monty]

Fantastic stuff!! This is more like it as we ain't goin anywhere except down in the present state of commercial archaeology ............ this has long been needed let's get on with it. As for the two large units amalgamating.who knows where this will go...one is client pricey and one dirt cheap .....i await developments with interest (and loaded gun !!!)

[moreno]

First impression was daym what a read! Hopefully it will be topical for Sat! Great stuff!

[dmama]

That's more like it pardners. let's just hope we get the right sherriff. here's to knowing our arses from a hole in the ground. yee har!!!!

[Dinosaur]

Nothing actually new but nice to see it all written down in the same place :face-approve:

[drpeterwardle]

As ever I seem to have been working in a different system to everybody else for the last 20 years....

It has always been clear who the sheriffs are- the LPAs and their advisors backed up by EH. The market has never been totally free - anybody doing fieldwork required by planning condition have to be approved by the LPA. In the early days their was much protectionism and true commercial firms were treated with real suspicion. This persists today with "approved lists" see the recent thread.

The Cotwes merger makes no real difference to the market place. PPS 5 is a major change and yes it has changed the market place it has enlarged it. As for the notion of a Fully Chartered Institute and barring the market to all but suitably qualified and experienced how does this fit into the integration reporting of the impacts on "heritage assets"?

This article misses the fundamental point about heritage protection in the planning system it is not about research but preservation and mitigation or a last minute distress purchase. The article calls for the following:

" Archaeologists should be involved with their clients management teams from the earliest opportunity in the development cycle – managing risk, minimising impact (and associated costs), and maximising the knowledge yield from any cultural heritage intervention."
I've been doing this for the last 22 years. It also suggested that PPS 5 "The new document sets the historic environment alongside other competing planning concerns, moving away from a tick-box culture of compliance and enabling commercial archaeologists to propose practical and cost effective solutions." Get real this change came about when PPG 16 was brought in - in fact before PPG 16 was introduced.
Peter Wardle

[diggingthedirt]

Thanks Peter. Quick off the draw. Going through your points one by one, reminded me of the campfire beans scene in Blazing Saddles. Sounds exactly like you’ve been working the same system as everyone else.

The article questioned the nature of competition in the heritage market, assessing its shortcomings, and suggesting ways it could work better. I am delighted that everything is currently working out so well for you and your clients. But in the spirit of progress, might you allow yourself to empathise with those who aren’t benefiting from the current system?

This article misses the fundamental point about heritage protection in the planning system it is not about research but preservation and mitigation

I do briefly discuss issues regarding the definition of ‘quality’ in archaeology. Not only do I want competition to benefit more individual archaeologists, I want it to realize a broader public benefit. That surely is the ‘fundamental point about heritage protection in the planning system.’ What we are talking about is fitness for purpose; by shrugging this off, you belie a poverty of expectation.

Perhaps another read is in order – and I’ll see you at the O.K. Corral at high noon. But this time use your shooting hand.

[Dinosaur]

On many (particularly larger) contracts, the archaeological consultant (often also the contractor) is effectively part of the wider project management team anyway, having frequently been brought in as part of the bundle with the Environmental consultants? Often at the very outset of the project design? (is this a good place to try and get planning permission to build such-and-such...) - often long before the proposed development goes anywhere near any part of the Local Planning Authority.... I've certainly worked on a few like that

[Callsign]

A great discussion (as always by people on here), but field archaeologists being always the ones to do the discussing are never the ones in the position to do anything about the conditions of pay/management of archaeology and the problems in the commercial world.

The only people who can make an effective change in commercial archaeology are those that have the power to do it. I would lose my job if i ever spoke up about the problems we all face in archaeology (and the annoying point is - its not my management that i'm having a go at, its the system that we ALL work in).

What we need is those in power to be singing from the same hymn sheet as us field archaeologists. They need to realise the system is very flawed, then to actually be making changes to make it better for everyone.

What I never understand is why developers just see archaeology as something to be gotten rid of, a pollutant that devalues the land. Surely the knowledge of the fact that the land once was (insert interesting piece of archaeology here) should INCREASE the value of the land? What matters for us is how any development affects the archaeology (ie knowledge = power, power and money are intimately linked). Development should mean BOTH finding out about our past for the benefit of everyone and dare i say profit for the developers? When was the last time you saw developers making money off of what was discovered on their site (and I don't mean just selling off what was found!)? I think good development should be AIDED/ENHANCED by the archaeology that went before. This is where a good report/project design comes in.

Please everyone, contribute to this, even if it is a sentence just explaining a thought you had once!