A hypothetical scenario....
A developer wants to build a new shiny complex on ground within a city centre.As the city curator-I happen to know that deeply stratified medieval buildings survive below ground on a certain street frontage.There is a good chance that Roman remains lay beneath them too. Rather than insisting that full excavation of the actual street frontage be undertaken-how about if I only insist upon the excavation of the medieval back yards and allow the developer to machine out the med buildings that survive on the street frontage? Is this a viable compromise?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

from the Virtual-Lancaster website, about the recently discovered Roman tombstone and the plans that the developer has to sell it to the highest bidder to cover the costs of the excavation. Opinions please?

16/2/06: Council leader Ian Barker has stepped into controversy over the Roman gravestone recently found in Lancaster during the building of a block of flats, which property developer Chris Tudor Wheelan is proposing to auction at Sotheby's, suggesting it might raise almost ?58,000.
The Times reported last week that Britain might lose the arefact, which depicts a mounted trooper holding a sword and the head of a man he has just killed, archaeologists say is a unique find, to an overseas buyer.
Councillor Barker has now written to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, asking her to refuse an export licence if this happens.
The gravestone, which has been dated to 1st or early 2nd century, is currently being dried ot at the County Museum in Preston.
Councillor Barker said that, as far as the City Council was concerned, planning permission was granted with archaeological conditions attached. There was an obligation in the development agreement not to dispose of any important archaeological finds.
"No one could have anticipated finding a stone of such significance," says Councillor Barker, "but it was known that this could be an important archaeological site.
" Planning permission was only granted on condition that a proper archaeological investigation was carried out. The costs of this should have been built into the development, so its more than a little opportunistic to seek to recover them just because something really important has been found."
"This stone is an important relic of Lancaster's Roman past," says Coun Barker. "In my view it should stay in Lancaster and the public should be able to see it. It shouldn't be sold into a private collection or sent abroad. I will certainly be asking officers of the City and the County Councils to do all they can to enforce the obligations attached to the planning consent."
"I've asked Tessa Jowell to refuse an export licence if this is sold abroad, so that we have a chance to keep the gravestone in Lancaster."
Mr Whelan told the Morecambe Visitor this week that he has invested a lot in Lancaster and he was not looking to sell off its heritage.
"But I would like to cover my costs," he told the paper. "I had to pay a total of about ?39,000 to have the digs completed under the planning regulations and, with the delay to the building that resulted, I reckon it's cost me about ?50,000, which is a lot to recoup.
"I've already been contacted by someone who offered to buy it as long as it remained in Lancaster," he added, "and that's what I'd like to happen ? but we'll have to see what develops."


++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

...and has been so since Christmas. The last few months have been an interesting period during which time I have discovered that some people I formerly thought of as friends have in fact been stabbing me in the back. Luckily I didn't use them as spokespersons!

Goodbye to you all.

Self imposed exile required for a while to escape BAJR bile and bickering

In case noone had noticed. I'll let you know when they let me out. Maybe a petition would help, lord knows none of you could afford the ransome (even if you cared).}[:o)]

Right wing, metal detectorist antiquarian (retired).

A handful of letters from members of the public appeared in a local paper recently.Redevelopment in a large city has revealed archaeology of some sexiness and the authors of the letters are asking why the remains could not be incorporated in the new build? An extremely valid question.Just why is it that the tenet "preservation in situ" is predominantly ignored in commercial archaeology? Why do curators feel that they have the right to utterly remove archaeology in advance of development? Why is`nt anyone out there asking developers to incorporate archaeology within the plans for new builds? Glass floors for example don`t add significant cost and can indeed be cheaper than blocks.The principle here is a sound one...."preservation in situ" is the thrust of PPG15/16.In commercial archaeology, the tenet is largely ignored in favour of complete removal.Why do we as a profession assume that we have the right to completely eradicate town/city archaeology? As issues such as tourism/education/citizenship/value of heritage is banded about in many a conference-commercial archaeology seems to opt out of any real local/social conscience and continues to pander to the needs of developers and clients.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

yeeeeeeeeeah..... off to Cambodia and Thailand (if you are watching Tom W... will see you soon and we can boot some Earthwatchers!)

So remember folks.... respect the admin and be nice... [8D]

Another day another WSI?

for sale new and boxed:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZgetat...oZ1QQrdZ0?

Ian

http://www.getatrowel.co.uk - trowels for archaeological excavators

Been a while since we visited this but just had a look at the results of the poll

http://www.bajr.org/BAJRPolls/result.asp

Bit disappointing eh? Especially as the 1997 manual Preface states that SCAUM 'believes that copies of the document should be readily available for consultation by all levels of staff...'

Project Managers and Unit Directors: pull your fingers out and your socks up. SCAUM: your members clearly are unable to disseminate such important documents. Please bypass them and make this document free to all. :face-confused:

My experience is that the bigger and more expensive the development, the more pressure any archaeologist is put under to justify their budget/programme. However, the larger developers take a very professional and pragmatic attitude. if you can put a robust, convincing case, you are more likely to be given the necessary resources/time/etc on a big scheme. Small schemes with small developers have much smaller margins and often less professional management. They are more likely to want to circumvent the condition, trash the archaeology or otherwise behave unreasonably.

Having attended a lot of meetings with large developer clients, I am awere that they treat their architects, engineering consultants, earthworks contractors etc in the same way - pressure to justify the time/resources they ask for, usually leading to tight but reasonable agreements.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished