The ragged trousered archaeologist

[Sean]

Okay, so coming in late, but here's an idea...

Nobody seems to want a socialist approach, but the capitalist one is pretty knackered in the current economic climate. No development means no archaeology, means no work for any of us. So, it seems to me that what we need is some sort of incentive for developers to consider archaeology as a crucial part of their development, but not one which means the development becomes non-profitable. At the moment the whole economy needs an incentive scheme which gets development back on its feet.

So what about some form of rebate for businesses that pursue best practice archaeology during their development? I would envisage this as similar to rebates used in a number of countries for developers who pursue environmentally friendly and low energy options in their developments. The rebate wouldn't cover the cost of the archaeology, the developer would still have to cover that, but it would be large enough to ensure developers pursue best practice options (say a 30% rebate of the costs of the archaeological work for example). Obviously this would need to be worked out at a far greater level of complexity but you get the idea.

This would cover a number of bases; first it would provide incentive to developers to get developing again without having to be overly concerned about the costs of archaeology (but only if they do get good archaeology done), which would help the economy which helps all of us; second it would provide incentive for developers to pursue a higher standard of archaeology than they usually do; third it would be in the nation's best interest by preserving the archaeological record for generations to come, which is exactly what PPG16 is supposed to ensure.

This isn't a socialist model, it is a capitalist one which provides incentive for developers to pursue a course that acts in the best interests of the people and the nation.

Comments?

[oldgirl]

It's an interesting idea, and probably wouldn't cost that much in the grand scheme of things.

Of course, what constitutes 'best practice' could be a sticky one....

[1man1desk]

Posted by Sean:

quote:Nobody seems to want a socialist approach, but the capitalist one is pretty knackered in the current economic climate. No development means no archaeology, means no work for any of us.

It is important to bear in mind that the purpose of developer-funded archaeology is not to provide jobs for archaeologists, but to mitigate the damage done to archaeological remains by development projects. In that context, no development means no damage to archaeological remains.

Providing a rebate (= subsidy) for 'best practice' archaeological work could encourage good practice amongst developers, but it has a couple of important down-sides.

Firstly, it reduces the developer's incentive to look for an alternative site or alternative design that avoids or minimises the archaeological damage.

Secondly, it implies that a developer's obligation is only to provide a basic, cheap-and-cheerful archaeological job; they don't have to get the job done properly if they don't want to, but if they agree to do so then the extra cost has to come out of the public purse. My view is that 'best practice' should form part of the developer's basic obligation, and that they should therefore pay for it.

If that doesn't always happen at the moment, it is probably because the curators lack the resources to do their job properly, or have insufficient power/influence over the decision-making process in their planning authorities. That very fact illustrates the fatal weakness of any publicly-funded solution - the money just won't be there.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Solutions however are needed, as for the reasons stated by oneman... the current system is flawed... though it must be replaced (or should I say supported) by a better solution

"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli

[Unitof1]

What about if museums paid for all the things that I discard, and my archive? and the things I don?t pick up, God knows where museums get their money from ? what would be nice is about ?400 a box ?.I could be very very rich

[GnomeKing]

"What about if museums paid for all the things that I discard, and my archive? and the things I don?t pick up, God knows where museums get their money from ? what would be nice is about ?400 a box ?.I could be very very rich"

cant see where yo are going with that one - part of a 'new solution' must be the broader arena beyond commercial archaeology, of which museums are, have, and will be hit hard by public spending cuts - we wouldn't want local museums to lose local government money because it has been diverted to archaeological excavation...would we?

sees to me that many of the problems are rooted deep in society, and that is perhapes where some focus needs to shift...
For example : the 'value' of heritage could be said to originate from how children are taught in school,and how adults percieve thier cuture and society.

Equally : social action begins with the self - individual arcchaeological entities might require radical internal overhaul and evolution, as-well-as negotiating 'collectivley' with the rest of the social and commercial world. Personally i would prefer this evolution to be in the vien of sustainable human co-operation, rather than in the shadow of capitalist hierarchies and individualistic capital acquisition...

[Unitof1]

Welcome gnomeking

as an archaeologist I would rather any free money came to me. I don?t think the museums want almost every thing that I dig up in fact they charge me to take it, bit like land fill tax, its the curators that make me put it in the museums and quite often the curators are part of the museum?.