Funding, subsidies and all that!

[Unitof1]

Hello folks been deranged watching builders briefs go wedgy when observed that they had no insurance- better get invoicing before they disappear, if they haven’t already, or no supper for the babbies.-the joys of the dark side

“funding for archaeology is very explicitly not a subsidy” I think that it explicitly very is-including both ways that OneMa suggests and all the others: academic .... And in developer funded it is a 100%er and its impossible to “do” archaeology without subsidy unless you are extremely wealthy-and by do I mean dig. For instance I know the secret of rig and frig (take note hosty) but I have yet to see an opportunity (heritage manage?) to make my fortune from it-dilemma do I tell for the good of the people (and bored uninterested diggers) or do I keep it to myself on the chance it might lead to fortune (which reminds- get lotto for tonite)-

perversity lies where subsidy is suggesting that landowners are protecting archaeology when we do not know if it is there. I think that anywhere a landowner (and the government as their backers) applies for funding to take a field out of farming, on the grounds that they are protecting archaeology, that evaluation trenches are undertaken to prove the extents of the archaeological potential. I think that if the cosmic survey has shown that even scheduled monuments have disappeared in the last ten years that any other nmp crop marks are more than likely to have gone. I call on the RDS or any other agency of pension grabbers to come out with where and what they are paying for “archaeology” to be protected so that we can mull over what we are getting for our buck (I suggest that it will be pathetic amount which allows them claim to use the word archaeology). And then archaeologist want some (more than half) of that buck to undertake the evaluations (trench)- oh and yearly checks on the status. And it should be done by independent self-employed people (no chance that they will be IFA members then) who will offer the cheapest price and not by some conflict of interest pension grabbers.

Then when they get a “grant” it has to be for some 99 year lease type thing and they have to give the deeds to the land to the first immigrant that they meet so that it can be seen that all this preservation of our traditional and vernacular is not reactionary politics at work which is what anything building restoration, -churches-, and “landscape” orientated is.

If-you can maintain an independence -a sense of self when all around is subsidy –then more punishments to come

[m300572]

"perversity lies where subsidy is suggesting that landowners are protecting archaeology when we do not know if it is there. "


Landownerts only get payments on land where there is known to be archaeology (or where there is ggood evidence such as cropmarks for archaeological remains having existed in the recent past).

"I think that anywhere a landowner (and the government as their backers) applies for funding to take a field out of farming, on the grounds that they are protecting archaeology, that evaluation trenches are undertaken to prove the extents of the archaeological potential."

I and my colleagues have discussed this as a principle - I am not sure if our political masters would be able to get their heads around the concept, even though its a damn good one - if we are going to pay the thick end of half a million quid over ten years we should be sure that its value for money

"I think that if the cosmic survey has shown that even scheduled monuments have disappeared in the last ten years that any other nmp crop marks are more than likely to have gone. I call on the RDS or any other agency of pension grabbers to come out with where and what they are paying for “archaeology” to be protected so that we can mull over what we are getting for our buck (I suggest that it will be pathetic amount which allows them claim to use the word archaeology)."

Ask the local Natural England office for the information (RDS is no longer in existance having been absorbed into Natural England). I actually object strongly to your description - why should I not get a pension when I have payed into a pension scheme for as long as one has been available (like not for the first ten years of my career when I was digging).

And then archaeologist want some (more than half) of that buck to undertake the evaluations (trench)- oh and yearly checks on the status. And it should be done by independent self-employed people (no chance that they will be IFA members then) who will offer the cheapest price and not by some conflict of interest pension grabbers.

You have a weird view of the way that contracts are awarded. if the scheme for evaluations was put in place then the work would be tendered for by commercial organisations, in the same way that structural engineering work, buildings survey and building works are put out to tender. Costs of removing land from cultivation £460/ha/year- can anyone tell me the current costs of carrying out an evaluation per ha. Once its out of cultivation why do you need an annual check apart from to employ diggers?

Then when they get a “grant” it has to be for some 99 year lease type thing and they have to give the deeds to the land to the first immigrant that they meet so that it can be seen that all this preservation of our traditional and vernacular is not reactionary politics at work which is what anything building restoration, -churches-, and “landscape” orientated is.

I have long thought that the best way of protecting significant areas of ecological interesst would be to spend the money actually buying them and then letting the land with management conditions. However as I am not the Secretary of State for anything, let alone a department with some interest inthe environment its not likely to happen. Try writing to the Sec of State for Defra (Milliband) or DCMS (Jowell) and let us know what the response is to this sensible suggestion.

[Unitof1]

“Ask the local Natural England office for the information (RDS is no longer in existance having been absorbed into Natural England).”

I had a go at this last year as a scam to get a free digital copy of the nmp. (I had asked a year before and told I had to pay £600 a tile to get the analogue digied). I got ping ponged between eh and the rds. Pastscape has got those defra numbers on it and I was unaware that a digital copy of the nmp existed as I had only ever seen an analogue one. So I was intrigued as to how they got a defra number on to a field. Eventually after a lot of FOI I got sent a cd with the vector data of selected field outlines on it (un-georefed). From it I havent worked out if allotted areas are from point source data that has been applied to the whole “field” or what the kind of tweaks/selection of data that were made.

At the time I was thinking that the landowners were going to have to prepare their own maps and that I might get some work from them preparing the archaeology potential but it turned out that the archaeology was stitched by the you know whos using this map. still seems to me that a bit of a field work could be used to suggest other unknown areas-again I think that it gives a bad impression about archaeology to the landowners big brother and all that as well as giving the impression that the white space on the map is barren- they also didnt have to raise a finger so are divorced from the subject- they have had the heritage management taken away from them...not likely then to look for potential

“the best way of protecting significant areas of ecological interesst would be to spend the money actually buying them”

ecological how did that get in here

best thing is give it to the immigrants as they have a tendency to get on in life and ignore all the cultural inhibitions that are inflicted on the natives by heritage managers