+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Interesting Thursday am problem (/showthread.php?tid=77)
Interesting Thursday am problem - monitor lizard - 2nd February 2006
You can even put in an application for a site you don't own - which makes sense on one hand but not much on the other! And I am with Invisible Man here, you can't penalise the developers. That said, you can certainly watch some more carefully than others if they have a track record of bending permissions!
Back to archiving - this is a monster problem, not just ownership, which is Byzantine in itself. At our depository, they will not accept archives without a transfer of ownership. I've never had someone serious refuse ont eh grounds that treasure might show up, but have had a company refuse to release archives on the grounds of client confidentiality. A compromise was reached, but only because, the site was negative and the archive could be reduced to the report without too much harm.
But other archiving problems include space (how many local museums refuse to accept them now?) and accessibility, not just content.
Ironically, in Canada ALL archaeological artefacts belong to the Queen.
ML
Interesting Thursday am problem - Sparky - 2nd February 2006
OK ML. Sorry if we're covering old ground here but if a non-reputable archaeological company was insisted by a developer as their preferred archaeological contractor would you object? Or, as you say, you'd watch them carefully.
Interesting Thursday am problem - the invisible man - 2nd February 2006
Hey Sparky, now I'm confused! Are you talking about the developer, or the contractor?
If the latter, this has been much discussed here, but I guess in theory a proposal to use a demonstrably unsuitable, unqualified, inexperienced, incompetent or otherwise inappropriate contractor could be not accepted as likely to satisfy the terms of a condition, but you would have to be pretty sure you'd be able to demonstrate it if and when challenged.
I wonder where the queen keeps all her Canadian artefacts then? Big shed in the garden at Windsor perhaps? Or maybe she flogs them off on e-bay under a pseudonym...
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Interesting Thursday am problem - monitor lizard - 2nd February 2006
Hi Sparky
I thought you were talking about the developer too, and how the planning authority would deal with a 'cowboy builder' submitting an application for development.
But if you were on about archaeological contractors, this has been much discussed before - opening yourself up for legal nightmare on restriction of trade grounds no matter who it is. Unless you have an approved list of contractors you will not restrict who works in a county.
But what you CAN do (and I know some of the other curators on here do this too) is monitor them to death - including post-excavation and archiving if you wish, and try to educate them. You also have to distinguish between incompentence, or malicious intent, rather than just being not quite up to the job, which is a very different thing, and there you can have more leeway (suggesting unit A contacts unit B for assistance on a particular scheme or whatever). In my experience most people are pretty okay with that.
But this is digressing from archiving....happy to continue under another thread.
ML
Interesting Thursday am problem - Sparky - 2nd February 2006
Hello,
Sorry. I was using that as an example to gauge whether a planning application naming unreputable developers, contractors or sub-contractors could be denied or amended if the mal-practitioner were replaced. Probably not the best example given all the caveats and eventualities mentioned above.
Anyway, I wasn't meaning to argue but seeking clarity. Looks like its a bit too messy.
What was the thread again....[?]
Interesting Thursday am problem - historic building - 3rd February 2006
In one of the districts i cover the district museum service does not accept any archaeological archives, but relies on a next-door district to keep a selection of archives. In another borough archaeological archives are deposited with the archive service - who are also almost out of space at about ?120 a box. Perhaps if the boxes were stacked six high this would pay for storage space for one year.
Interesting Thursday am problem - the invisible man - 3rd February 2006
Every county should have a LAARC....
Once again I see this as evidence that statutory obligations regarding hertitage/archaeology on counties (etc) are required.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Interesting Thursday am problem - monitor lizard - 3rd February 2006
We need to have archives - digging sites and not storing the evidence is akin to trashing them in my book, as the site can never be interrogated or re-assessed. Preservation by record can only function if the record is accessable.
I also think that one of the other main problems with archiving is that units do not cost for the archiving work. A big site can easily take weeks if not months to get into an acceptable state for depostition (marking things, putting them in proper bags and boxes, packing, listing photographs & slides, sorting through the paper) and it really rankles that so seldom is this accounted for at the costing stage....
You're very right, Invisible - every county needs a LAARC.
ML
Interesting Thursday am problem - troll - 3rd February 2006
Tiz written-should present no further burden to the council.Hence-yes absolutely, authorities/councils should be required by law to consider, store and maintain an integrated and accessible archive.The burden is upon the developer/polluter.Councils and Authorities could simply attach conditions.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Interesting Thursday am problem - Sparky - 3rd February 2006
Has anyone asked Paul for details of this case such as was there conditions for provisions of finds as part of the planning consent and as part of the documented process?