+- 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: Future Monopoly? (/showthread.php?tid=1009)
Future Monopoly? - 1man1desk - 14th July 2008
Posted by Shadowjack, commenting on my previous post:
Quote:quote:1man1deskUnfortunately, some of what I talked about previously probably does still occur. However, under the current system, it is the exception rather than the rule, and generally the result of something going badly wrong.
Nice post - put's the current into the historical perspective.
But (there's always a but!) not sure I wholly agree with you.
Doesn't some of what you say used to occur still occur?
Under the old system, at least in some parts of the country, the kind of thing I described was standard practice, or even the best that could possibly be achieved with good-will and best efforts from everyone involved on the archaeological side. Often it was the result of deliberate decisions by curators, into which they were forced by the fact that their local authority bosses only gave them miniscule fieldwork budgets, or none at all.
The old system often was a monopoly or near-monopoly, as each unit had its traditional 'territory', poached on only by English Heritage on occasion or by the MSC (although most MSC schemes would actually be run by the local unit).
It was developer funding that enabled the huge expansion of the quantity of archaeological work done on development projects. A corollorary of developer funding is that they are allowed to pick their own contractor, hence competitive tendering. However, it also freed the curators to insist not only on more comprehensive investigation but investigation to a higher standard.
So, the post-PPG16 competitive system has not removed all the quality problems from archaeological practice, but overall it has been good for archaeological standards.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Future Monopoly? - m300572 - 14th July 2008
"largest singe funding "
Paying monkeys in peanuts no doubt!
OK, it only works if you know French!
Future Monopoly? - BAJR Host - 14th July 2008
la de da
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Future Monopoly? - Windbag - 14th July 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by m300572
"largest singe funding "
Paying monkeys in peanuts no doubt!
OK, it only works if you know French!
Le singe est dans le sondage?
Future Monopoly? - RedEarth - 14th July 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by m300572
"largest singe funding "
Paying monkeys in peanuts no doubt!
OK, it only works if you know French!
Sorry, I'm so ill-educated I thought that was some reference to funding following a minor fire (I only understood because of Eddie Izzard), and that 'it only works if you know French' was an obscure quote used as a signiture!
As for Manpower Services work - being fortunately too young to have been around when this 'system' was in place I can only say that I am glad to be operating under the PPGs. What strikes me about the projects that I am aware of in my immediate locale that were carried under MSC is that the results have never been seen since, which is surely just as bad as machining the whole site into a skip! No-one running them seems to have been accountable to anyone whereas now the County Mounties (if they are at all bothered, which in my experience they usually are) are keeping as close a watch on things as they practically can. Surely that is a lot better for the archaeology.
One example of what I believe was an MSC project involved local inmates excavating/clearing the basement of a small castle. Funnily enough they didn't find any finds! Certainly a monopoly on the basis of the pre-PPG days would be bad, but it would be a completely different situation if it happened now, which it obviously won't. As someone already pointed out the existance of Tesco doesn't result in every other shop closing down (not quite anyway!) That's probably a poor example - the existance of large building companis doesn't led to the closure of all the small ones; after all, who gets Persimmon to build them an extension?
Future Monopoly? - oldgirl - 14th July 2008
Quote:quote:
One example of what I believe was an MSC project involved local inmates excavating/clearing the basement of a small castle. Funnily enough they didn't find any finds! Certainly a monopoly on the basis of the pre-PPG days would be bad, but it would be a completely different situation if it happened now, which it obviously won't. As someone already pointed out the existance of Tesco doesn't result in every other shop closing down (not quite anyway!) That's probably a poor example - the existance of large building companis doesn't led to the closure of all the small ones; after all, who gets Persimmon to build them an extension?
That's exactly it. I don't have a problem with the the expansion that was originally the point of this thread. I also don't have a problem with the fact that some people don't think that competitive tendering/PPG16 was a good thing. I just happen not to agree with them! I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's better than what was there before. And yes, lots of the MSC stuff didn't get written up, but then that was pretty par for the course anyway. My very 1st job on MSC was as an archives person, trying to sort out some excavations that had been done by various people who had clearly taken the line that if they never wrote anything up, no-one could critisise their work until after they had shuffled of this mortal coil. And no-one was monitoring them. Remember, EH wasn't even set up until (if I remember rightly) 1984?
(I still get cold sweats remembering the multiple years with the same trench and context numbers, where they didn't write which it year it was on the records....... which genuinely included backs of fag packets!)
Future Monopoly? - vulpes - 14th July 2008
Quote:quote:Remember, EH wasn't even set up until (if I remember rightly) 1984?
Yer, it was that well known champion of the environement Michael Heseltine wot done it.
Future Monopoly? - 1man1desk - 14th July 2008
Quote:quote:Remember, EH wasn't even set up until (if I remember rightly) 1984?But, I think, EH is really just a 'trading name' for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which has been around for a bit longer (probably with a more restricted remit).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Future Monopoly? - drpeterwardle - 14th July 2008
The National Heritage Act 1983 etablished a Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. The body was is still formally called this (see the 2002 Act). The snappy title English Heritage was adopted almost immediately and the two bodies have always had the same function because they are the same thing.
As for the notion that there were monopolies before PPG 16 - only in the minds of certain people. BUFAU was established in the late seventies to work nationally for example.
I discussed this in my BAJR 2006 paper.
No back to the thread .....
Peter
Future Monopoly? - BAJR Host - 14th July 2008
Nice plug.... see it all here:
Peters (and other Conference Sessions
http://www.pasthorizons.tv/tv/view/141/bajr-conference-2007-peter-wardle/
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu