What was Archaeology like in the Past

[Dinosaur]

Cos money = more beer and fags? :face-stir:

[kevin wooldridge]

Except it wasn't all about MSC or Department of Environment funding.

There were some units persuading developers to pay for excavations in the 70s and 80s, notably Southampton, Winchester, York, DUA, DGLA, Norwich, SUAT, St Albans, Canterbury to name a few. Some of these 'contributions' were tempered by section 53 (latterly section 106) planning gain agreements and I guess the success of such initiatives lead eventually to PPG16. But PPG16 wasn't a total shock to the system and if memory serves me right just about all of the English county,city units and charitable trusts had had some success with attracting developer funding prior to the introduction of PPG16. (I can't comment on the situation in Wales and Scotland). I do remember around about 1984 there was actually an underspend on Department of Environment funding, because a lot of units decided it wasn't worth the hassle of the associated form filling/arse licking for the pittance that DoE was handing out for single project grants at that time. (There were rumours that YAT had been 'tipped off' about such an underspend and had snuck in right at the end of the application period an enormous number of applications for project funding....but that's by the by). My point is that most units at the time were generating enough cash from other sources NOT to be totally reliant on DoE funding.

There were also archaeological projects funded as a result of 'regeneration funding' which even back in the 80s often included a mixture of private/public funding and quite often it was these projects which fell under the MSC/Job Creation cover-all. Sometimes though these could be subject to change at short notice. I remember working on such a project in Newcastle, but the part of the funding from central government was 'redistributed' to riot-stricken Liverpool at short notice and the project folded.

[Kel]

In my opinion bring on Son of MSC forthwith !!!

OK I'm confused.

Isn't the prevailing view here against things like volunteer involvement or students interning for free, on the grounds that they're taking work from already struggling professionals?

But a return to an MSC-type workforce would be a good thing - why? Surely it's just volunteer work by another name. What's the difference? Will it really not have any impact on the work currently done by paid staff?

[Wax]

I suppose we could see a scheme where the work force is made up of unemployed archaeologists. I am with Kel on this, when the profession is in melt down archaeology should not be used for what is essentially forced labour or a jolly for the locals whatever good intentions might be behind it.:face-stir:

[kevin wooldridge]

I suppose we could see a scheme where the work force is made up of unemployed archaeologists.

If I remember correctly the base qualification for getting onto a 1980s MSC scheme in a supervisory capacity was that you were registered with the Professional and Executive Register at the dole office, for which academic requirement at the time was 2 A-levels or higher. I don't seem to remember that claiming to be an unemployed 'archaeologist' gave you any specific cachet at the dole office, (especially as their 'thesaurus' of so called professions didn't even include a category called 'archaeology'.....I forget how many times I was asked 'Is it the same as architect?). And I am sure that any future job creation programmes would be equally as undiscriminating.....by definition it has to be otherwise it wouldn't be a 'job creation' so much as a 'job protection' scheme...I do seem to recall that there was an underlying qualification period for some schemes i.e you had to have been unemployed for a certain period of time. This always struck me as unfair as it seemed to favour those less able to find or hold down work gained through ones own initiative......

PS I haven't been 'registered' unemployed for a number of years now so don't know whether the old Professional and Executive Register still exists....

[BAJR]

That said... we could do more archaeology with more people... the MSc rs would not be able to replace an archaeologist but add to the team...

I must admit I did chuckle a bit at Wax's "essentially forced labour or a jolly for the locals whatever good intentions might be behind it"

In part the reason we are struggling is that we are not important, we don't matter, we don't try to gather support.. Discuss.
in the past, we may have been seen as a slightly weird but truely fascinating bunch. Being an Archaeologist was about being just that. It never stopped at 5pm, you read, you drank, you talked to dreamt.. Pay was poor, accommodation was post apocalyptic and there was plenty else wrong... but lets not forget the best bits of archaeology - the recording techniques, the methodologies all happened before PPG! At the core, we were archaeologists.. we dug archaeology, we were discovering. WE did not worry about finding archaeology, we were genuinely excited to find it. Only when ppg came in did the fear of finding appear. only then did we start to become slightly more self important. We stopped walking along the road, with held held high.. proud to be an archaeologist, we started to look down our noses at those without our blessed profession.. MiFA or PiFA?? Degree or not? what you do archaeology as a hobby at the weekend?

Ahem... I may be a bit disjointed - but then I am off to the dentist in 2 hours!

Point being... the past has happened... it had good bits and bad bits. The Present is here... the Future? well thats up to you

[Drunky]

How come archaeological work was done on some sites and not on others, about five years after the site i mentioned in the original question a new town hall was built in the centre of a medieval town with no archaeology, they where only one county away from each other.

[kevin wooldridge]

How come archaeological work was done on some sites and not on others....

I can't comment on the specific circumstances but I would imagine that the county archaeologist/local archaeology society negotiated access to one site but were either refused (or couldn't be bothered!!) to press for access to the other. Then as now, apart from scheduled sites, it all came down to the local curator, (which prior to PPG16 was normally just the local archaeology officer) and their ability to use the planning system in favour of archaeological intervention.

I remember sometimes being granted access to sites but without the developer making any financial contribution. Which at the end of the day rather limited the scale of work you were able to carry-out. PPG 16 underwrote the principal that developers could be asked to pay for archaeological work or at least their planning permission could contain a condition to that end.

[Dinosaur]

Every single MSC post I held was waivered (ie I didn't have to have been unemployed for six months) - staff posts above the basic 3-day-a-week job-creation end usually were, not many archaeologists back then tended to sit around on their arses being unemployed for 6 months at a time when they could go out and 'vol' for even less!

The joy of MSC (and indeed DoE) funding was the shear number of big archaeology projects running - none of my current crew have ever worked on a project with even 50 people on site, let alone 100 plus, those were the happy days when you could wait for a break in the weather and trowel the WHOLE SITE up for some piccies with enough sunlight left.

There was certainly a perception around the circuit in the late 80s that MSC was funding well over a half of British archaeology - anyone got any figures on expenditure still floating around or has all that sort of stuff long since been shredded?

And of course MSC introduced a slightly more varied mix into the workforce, not just mass-produced archaeology graduates, with an equally varied and valuable skill set - there certainly seemed to be more diggers with driving licences in those days (what is this thing with people not being able to drive, am sure a disproportionately small number of diggers hold a licence compared to the general population), plant drivers, etc. etc, and 'reformed' burglers were always handy when locked out of the cabin! ....what proportion of today's unit managers started as MSC? - I can think of several

[Wax]

So am I right in thinking that before PPG 16 archaeology was not an automatic consideration in the planning process and that work infront of development was dependant on a team willing to have a go and funding from the DOE or other sources? I was around in the 1970 s but was not an archaeologist however I remember hanging out for a couple of days with friends who were volunteers on the excavation of a Saxon burial ground, this had well preserved skeletons with burial goods. The friends excavating it were local sixth formers doing A level history the site director was a professional archaeologist but the the bulk of the team were very inexperienced. The work was in advance of a major road scheme which removed half a hillside. I have no idea who was funding the excavation but suspect it was done on a shoe string.

I do in fact believe totally in inclusive community archaeology but as an adjunct to the professional work that needs to be carried out in advance of development. All of us Commercial, Academic and Amateur need to work within a clearly structured and monitored system. Volunteer archaeology and work creation schemes should be a supplement never a replacement for the professional work required for development control.

Talk to some of the older digger drivers who were around before PPG and listen to the tales of the archaeology that was ripped out in the hearts of our towns without anyone noticing or caring.