+- 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: Volunteers (/showthread.php?tid=792)
Volunteers - garybrun - 16th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardleI sure can Peter... must be humiliating.
Gary can you imagine how annoying it is when people say do you get paid or have had to go university. I got asked this by an architect at a clients lunch party last year very funny. I told him the level of my fees .....
My point about the volunteers Peter is that you can have unpaid experts in metal detection to locate and help record the resource. I do accept that they in the end will cost money to manage etc.
but many archaeologists do not have the skills in this area.
Either except or train up archaeologists to use this tool.
I think the times now require archaeologists and consultants to justify their fees more than ever.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Volunteers - BAJR Host - 16th January 2008
Becuase I'm worth it
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Volunteers - drpeterwardle - 16th January 2008
I would make the point that how much I charge is a private matter and is not open to scrutiny. I have only worked for any public body twice for one I got UKP100 for three days work and the other I am still bound by the secrecy agreement 6 years later.
For my day to day work is for other organisations and market forces prevail simple as that. I make far less in fact than people think.
I am far from convinced the artefact collection is anything more than one of many weapons in my armory of techniques to use and that there is actually a skill shortage so I have to resort to using volunteers. In particular I think rarely will the collect of said artefacts will make the difference in determining what the importance of site actually is.
I would note that I have been trained in both the theory and practice of the use of said devices which is not to say I still retain that skill.
Peter
Volunteers - garybrun - 16th January 2008
Every man has to make a living and that's his own business if he has his own business.
I hope you dint think I wanted to know what you charge... that definitely was not my intention.
If it came across that way... I do apologise.
In all honesty I am really confused.
One minute the searching of top soil is a valid point and the other hand
"In particular I think rarely will the collect of said artefacts will make the difference in determining what the importance of site actually is".
So why all the fuss about non recording Peter within various circles.
Its been stated that the biggest threat to finite resource is large housing development and that archaeology has become commercial to deal with the large amounts of land that is being developed and that archaeology is having problems justifying itself commercially.
Are sacrifices made to the heritage so others can get the contract?
Who polices this?
Should archaeologist be made accountable for their fees and what they do with the public money. Do the public have a right to ask what is being done in the name of heritage?
All honest questions as I dont understand the workings of the system.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Volunteers - drpeterwardle - 16th January 2008
Yes publically funded archaeology should be open to scrutiny.
The point I was making is that much fieldwork is done to determine the presence/absence and importance of a site which triggers a planning decision.
In the main as I say artefacts metal or none metal will not make the difference about the importance of the site ie is it nationally important or not and thus if pp will be refused or preservation in situ is required.
At the excavation stage there is a debate to be had about how artefacts should be recovered from the topsoil.
OK so I pose this real question when human remains are excavated any soil that has to be removed has to be free of bone. What does free mean in this context do particiles less than 1mm, 10mm or 100mm have to be removed. To achieve 1mm all soild would have to be seived in a lab and impossible task.
So I pose the question can we recover 100% of artefacts in any situation in any event.
Peter
Volunteers - garybrun - 16th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
So I pose the question can we recover 100% of artefacts in any situation in any event.
Peter
No... but we can try our best with the tools that are at our disposal.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Volunteers - gumbo - 17th January 2008
Hi Gary, from a few of your posts overthe last couple of days I think you have perhaps sold youself a bit short about offering voluntary labour. I get the impression that a lot of archaeological contractors now dont want volunteer detectorists because they want to EMPLOY them! A bit of marketing and the entreprenurial detectorist will find themselves with a 60 km pipeline to survey for a couple of grand!
Volunteers - garybrun - 17th January 2008
And it would cost me a couple of grand to get over from Norway to do it
I can recommend a few very serious and experienced detectorists if anyone needs them.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Volunteers - Paul Belford - 17th January 2008
Thanks for the many positive comments about volunteers. Peter has raised an interesting issue when saying:
Quote:quote:
OK lets look at one point confidentiality. Big nasty developers want to demolish factory which is still in use but the workers havent been told this yet or what it will mean. This factory has to be recorded as part of the conservation statement who would you choose?
a. highly respected consultant with confidentiality systems in place from the other end of the country.
b. the local history society and volunteers
c. the local archaeological unit with volunteers
d the local archaeology unit without volunteers.
In my experience this process would normally broken down into (at least) two stages. The first stage, which takes place whilst the factory is still in operation, is gathering the necessary information to make an informed planning decision. This might require some 'recording' but will normally involve more of an assessment level study of the building(s) to determine their significance and worthiness of protection / further recording. This might well be done by either "a" or "d" in Peter's list of choices. I would prefer to see it being done by "d" as they might have extra local knowledge than "a" coming from "the other end of the country" - but really there [u]should</u> be no difference in quality.
The conservation statement which results from this assessment might then recommend further recording in various forms prior to redevelopment. This could well involve a combination of standing building recording, below-ground archaeology and oral history. This would take place after closure of the factory and prior to (and during) redevelopment. This should certainly be undertaken by "d", and it would be in everyone's best interests if "c" and "b" were also involved - ie. the local archaeological unit working closely with the local history society and perhaps a handful of the local history people getting closely involved with some of the building recording and oral history.
We have just finished a project which has done all of this and more, but unfortunately I am bound by confidentiality (!) until the Planning Permission is signed off, so cannot mention it by name!
To answer Gary's points...
Quote:quote:
Its been stated that the biggest threat to finite resource is large housing development and that archaeology has become commercial to deal with the large amounts of land that is being developed and that archaeology is having problems justifying itself commercially.
Are sacrifices made to the heritage so others can get the contract?
Who polices this?
Should archaeologist be made accountable for their fees and what they do with the public money. Do the public have a right to ask what is being done in the name of heritage?
There are a lot of points there and I am sure others can answer them better than I can - however since I started this thread I guess I have some responsibility!
I don't think commercial archaeology has a problem justifying itself. Most developers now acknowledge that dealing with the historic environment is just as important as natural environment issues. Consultants are essentially 'risk managers' who try and limit their client's exposure to costs. In that sense there will always be a compromise between what the archaeologists want to do and what it is possible to do - but that is always the case in all environment-related disciplines. The system is policed by local planning authorities (ie. the overworked curatorial archaeologists). These curatorial archaeologists are publicly funded - ie. they are public servants of the relevant local authority and you should be able to find out how much your county/borough spends on its own service (pitifully little, you will find).
Yes the public have the right to know what is being done with their heritage, and the person to ask is your local curatorial archaeologist. If you are concerned you can raise the issue with your local politicians (councillors), who can put pressure on senior officers in the relevant local authority directorate, who might increase the resource available to the curatorial archaeologist. That's democracy!
On the other hand commercial archaeological fees are entirely the business of commercial archaeological units and consultants. Most of the time it is [u]not</u> public money, but private money (developer funding) which supports archaeology (for instance in the case of house building). It is entirely up to the developer if he wishes to make public how much he has spent on archaeology. This system has been with us since 1990.
For publicly-funded projects, however, we have every right to know how much was spent, and this is usually to be found in the small print of the EH annual review. Some archaeological units are charitable trusts, and their accounts are inspectable via the Charities Commission.
PS. Peter as I understand it 'gas-free certification' usually requires compliance (ie. removal) within 24 hours. However I would not expect to involve volunteers in the decommissioning of oil storage installations!
Edited to explain more clearly the funding for curators.
Volunteers - Steven - 17th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by gumbo
Hi Gary, from a few of your posts overthe last couple of days I think you have perhaps sold youself a bit short about offering voluntary labour. I get the impression that a lot of archaeological contractors now dont want volunteer detectorists because they want to EMPLOY them! A bit of marketing and the entreprenurial detectorist will find themselves with a 60 km pipeline to survey for a couple of grand!
Hi Chaps
At which point the employed MDs become archaeologists under law (as discussed on another thread) and can no longer gain financially under the Treasure Act. Also as professionals most of us sign up to standards of recording (generally the IFA standards but not always) which mean that we record findspots precisely and have a responsibility to make our results public (through the HERs/SMRs) with reasonable dispatch.
Gary,
I know you don't like my comments as your last dismissive comment made clear when I tried to describe the system last time but I will try again as I think you misunderstood my motivations.
Almost all archaeology in Britain is carried out by commercial companies (normally called Units) working on behalf of developers in advance (or during) development. The exceptions to this are Universities (normally training or research digs), local amateur groups and things like the Time Team (who are commercial but are predominantly a media company not an archaeological unit). Although funded by the developer the units are monitored by Local Authority archaeologists (often called County Mounties on these forums). These county mounties advise planning authorities on the archaeological implications of developments and are the "police" you ask about. They are the "public funded" archaeologist in that they work for councils. Their work can be scrutinised as they are public servants and their advice is quoted when locally elected members (councillors) make planning decisions or the planning officers who deal with planning applications on members behalf and are therefore on public record. As they work for local communities its is quite right that they be scrutinised and I welcome that and often insist on public open days on excavations etc so that people can see whats going on. Also I give loads of talks to community groups (in my County) to explain archaeology (usually by highlighting interesting excavations etc).
County mounties also monitor the commercial arch units to ensure that work is carried out to recognised national standards and is "fit for purpose". They also operate the HERs/SMRs. Our very own Mr Hosty and myself for example are "county mounties" while others on these forums work for commercial units or are consultants who are the developers advisor who may sometimes agree or disagree with a county mounty and so are a "check" on county mounties requiring too much work (sorry consultants I know this is such an oversimplification of your work but hey, I don't get paid by the word like you do
)Therefore, most archaeologist do NOT have to account for their spending of public money because despite what most people seem to think they don't get any. I think this is one of the problems, I often hear MDs, local objectors to development and others saying its wrong that archaeologist act a certain way because "after all we are paying their wages" well mostly they ain't a developer is.
Hope this helps you understand the system and I'm sure that if you want clarification anybody on this forum will be willing to answer your questions.
Steven