Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What do you think?
Exactly ... even more so when they argue that the record should be depositied with the Roya Commission.. er... thats wot we do.. er... and an entry into Discovery and Excavation ... er and the SMR/HER. Somehow suggesting that reports are not making their way into the public record..

All we want is the work to be carried out by someone who can demonstrate the competance to record the building to a specified level.

Good point Curator Kid... I now find I was very rarely an archaeolgoist... --- (some people would say that anyway)

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
A slight digression for which I apologize, but I am intrigued to learn that a bus station can be recorded in half a day, particularly if this structure appears to include integral shops etc. Without knowing the building at all of course, I would guess that it would me (with an assistant) at least a week to measure up such a structure to simple construction standards, for constructional purposes, nowhere near to "building archaeology" recording standards. Then a day or two to draw it up. Am I missing the point somewhere?
This is the BASIC Level record... the building has existing structural plans and elevations, with functions noted.


this falls into the category of basically collecting together the existing documents... photography of the building in use. In my judgement any more would be difficult to defend - and as we already had enough data, form, function, use, owners of shops etc... that were accesible... this would be the termination of records.. a collection that was accesible. hope that explains.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Personally I have always liked the definition of archaeology given to me on day 1 of my undergraduate course in 1981:

"The study of the human past through its material remains".

That definition makes a clear distinction between archaeologists and historians (who study the human past principally using documentary records), and does not imply any cut-off date.

Applying any cut-off date is bound to be arbitrary and meaningless - what makes something 'archaeological' if it comes before a particular date and not if it comes one day later?

I was particularly amused by the definition put forward in the Devon appeal case quoted by Vulpes -
Quote:quote:the study of prehistoric remains, or antiquities of medieval origin
That seems to leave us studying things before and after the Roman period, but not the Roman period itself!

I am also slightly confused by Dr Peter Wardle's arguments about the 1979 Act. The Act is called the 'Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act' and puts in place a procedure for the protection of sites as Ancient Monuments. There are numerous 20th century sites, many of them including buildings, that are Scheduled as Ancient Monuments. The legal definition of 'ancient' must therefore be able to accommodate 20th century features. On that basis, the architect's argument falls flat on its face - whatever you think of the concept of 'buildings archaeology'.


to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Originally posted by vulpes

Bit of a theme emerging here - architects who seem to hold heritage in contempt... But still there's the recent planning appeal in Devon against a building recording condition where the inspector on dismissing the appeal stated:

Quote:quote:The appellant states that ‘archaeology is normally understood to be the study of prehistoric remains, or antiquities of medieval origin’. However, I have no evidence of such a limited definition. The OED defines the word as ‘ancient history generally, the systematic study of antiquities or matters of earlier times’. PPG16 – Archaeology and Planning states ‘Today’s archaeological landscape is the product of human activity over thousands of years. It ranges through settlements and remains of every period from the camps of the early hunter gatherers 400,000 years ago to remains of early 20 century activities’. It is clear, therefore that the Government draws
the parameters widely.

I've got a PDF of the full statement if you want to show it to your ignorant potential client. Big Grin Personally I would stretch it through into the late 20th century in the case of structures which are rare or unusual. It's up to us to make coherent arguments really.

Which is pretty much the same planning appeal decision that was made re: a case in Lancashire about 8 years ago - the owrding of the condition was deemed in some respects to be unreasonable as it was for a 'qualified practitioner' or similar wording to do the survey and the inspector decided that if we produced an adequate brief and monitored it then anyone could do the work, providing they fulfilled the brief - and we had some resaonable records from architects, and occasionally the owners of buildings, as well as the archaeological contractors - we did however have a higher share of rejects and returns for amendment and improvement from the non-archaeologists. It is quite in order therefore (IMO) to tell the architect/developer that he can appeal against recording if they want to but the precendents are such that they will lose the appeal.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by m300572 It is quite in order therefore (IMO) to tell the architect/developer that he can appeal against recording if they want to but the precendents are such that they will lose the appeal.

This is true and they will also probably widdle more time and money up the proverbial wall than they would by simply complying with the condition.

Hey ho!

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Your powers are weak, Curator
For avoidance of doubt I'm off to buy myself a Pocket Oxford Dictionary c.1990 [:I]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)