Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Yeah, cheers.
I still don't understand how someone with no field experience can consult about a subject they only know one side of. (the planning side) Too many times I've found myself showing archaeological features to a consultant who has a glazed look and clear lack of understanding of what techniques will be best employed. Does this individual take my word for it or just make something up to tell the developer?
I'll admit I have also worked with consultants who are very experienced in fieldwork, and they are much easier to deal with than the inexperienced ones. By the sounds of it though they may be a dying breed. The relative wage difference will pretty much ensure that individuals who go right into consultancy or curating won't ever get field experience. I bet the developers expect field proficiency in their consultants, but naively assume the title "archaeologist" requires it.(as I did)
If a career in archaeological consultancy or curating now no longer requires field experience then I despair. Imagine consultant surgeons with no experience of surgery!
Consultants are not unpopular because they treat developers like human beings. (Most field archs do also,it would be commercial suicide to do otherwise.) The [u]unpopular </u>consultants are that way because they are usually either:
A)Clueless about the realities of archaeological methodology.
or
B) Less than fully honest with developer or archaeological contractors.
Both of these situations dramatically increase the potential for confrontation rather than decreasing it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Digging is but one part of field archaeology....
Everyday field archaeologists interpret geophysics plots without in many cases any idea of the principals involved - what is the difference. Similarly accepting the date of pottery, the C14 date or the environmental analysis without a detailed knowledge.
I think a basic understanding of field archaeology is neccessary but the issue is to what degree before specialisation is acceptable anwhat should be involved?
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
"Digging is but one part of field archaeology"(see previous post)!!
And consultants are one of the reasons that we don't get paid tidy wages, if less people have a slice of the pie we could all have a bigger piece!!
Well thats my opinion anyhow, what say you Troll?
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Quote:quote:Everyday field archaeologists interpret geophysics plots without in many cases any idea of the principals involved - what is the difference. Similarly accepting the date of pottery, the C14 date or the environmental analysis without a detailed knowledge.
I think a basic understanding of field archaeology is neccessary but the issue is to what degree before specialisation is acceptable anwhat should be involved
I think we may be moving towards an interesting point here. Are field archaeologists who primarily dig specialists then? Or are we serving a necessary apprenticeship before specializing?
I firmly believe that experienced "diggers" (to use a term I hate) are specialists in their own right and should get specialist rates! However, I also believe that without field experience no specialist is going to be as good as one with field experience. The more the better. It should be mandatory for consultants, curators, and most specialisms that I can think of, and not just the pitiful amount University requires.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I can think of all sorts of people and reasons why "diggers"/archaeologists do not get paid well but the existence of consultants is not one of them.
Deep digger I am currently trawling through documents - very boring its gone six oclock on a sunny day- why isnt this archaeology/history? Are saying this type of work is not neccessary?
Yes if fewer people had a slice of the sum that come to the field teams diggers pay might indeed be increased. I think you are referring to the fact that some consultancies sub-contract field teams and/or add an uplift to the charge. I very rarely do this and ceratinly not on a big project.
It is naive to think that developers set budgets and YOU (the archaeologists) are entitled to spend it as you wish ie by paying the diggers/archaeologists more.
The percentage charge is a common means of calculating fees in the construction industry for professionals. Usually the build cost is used - 10% for architects. For people like landscaped architects it is 10% of the landscaping costs. This is a fee for obtaining the permissions frequently at there own risk and executing the project.
Developers have their own costs in awarding and managing any contract in any event and this is another role of the consultant.
Back to those documents ...
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Wow...this is a bit good! Thanks for a good, frank exchange so far! Thanks Dr Wardle, I don`t fancy doing your mileage in my Polo. I suppose that my gripe with the whole consultancy issue is simply that all too often, Project designs and mitigation strategies bear no resemblance to the actual work carried out on the ground. We have already been told (thankyou Curators) that developers can only be asked to do the minimum required. Theres the "compromise" as per PPG.Trouble is, the consultant then goes about advising the client as to how they may "do the minimum" CHEAPLY. Hold on, theres another compromise? By the time that it lands in the hands of the field teams,we are left with the thinnest glimmer of an interpretation of the meaning of PPG16. Add to that pressures of time and money and the archaeology is then compromised under the trowel. Some one really should be monitoring this.....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I managed until 4 years ago in my polo 215 000 in the end!
The minimum - hang on - open days press releases - even actual publication - meaningless bone report - I could go on and on.
The trouble is that the minimum or the maximum is not actually defined. There is no point in me being on site and saying you will dig that it is the spec. If the spec are not being followed then that is down to the field archaeologists not the consultants and the curators.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Hmmm...
Maybe that's how you do it, but I am very seldom asked by a consultant to do more than the spec, and quite often asked to do less.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I could rant about the last message but unfortunately I am not allowed to. I am on site usually on day 1 and occassionally after that.
I will quote an example, and if any of the people involved read this I will re-iterate what I said at the time exceptionally good quality work - cost an arm and a leg - but they did an exceptional job on a very difficult site.
In front of eyes for the first time for me a near complete prehistoric vessel on day one of the evaluation was found. The feature extended into the baulk and I asked for the feature to be completely excavated. The client agreed with me. What and why I suggested made sense to him. After a little bit of argument said unit agreed to excavate the feature. Did they actually do that on the evaluation...
A simple situation I asked for an extra - in the building trade extra money is always paid. On another occassion I asked somebody to do some extra work on something and they asked me for written confirmation for an hours extra work....I could rant on this...
I think the point that mercenary made "I firmly believe that experienced "diggers" (to use a term I hate) are specialists in their own right and should get specialist rates!"
or are they serving an apprenticeship is an interesting one and worth exploring. (I alwasy preferred the term digger to volunteer when I was young.)
By the time we employ the technology on site and all the other things that go with good day modern archaeology digging ought to be a specialism.
Dr Peter
Who must get to bed and write that report tomorrow rather than reading BAJR.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Using the same argument that consultants should have a certain amount of field experience, I would suggest that all archaeologists, or at least those in the "commercial sector", should have some knowledge and appreciation of the planning and development framework in which they work.
There are no doubt some evil developers who see archaeology/PPG16 as a nuisance and who would actively seek to destroy it by any means to save a few bob. There are some excellent ones who genuinely enter into the spirit of the thing and are happy to play a full part. Nearly all however will be somewhere on a line between the two extremes. There are many other things beside archaeology that a developer may be required to do, and/or pay for, in order to obtain planning permission, like roundabouts and traffic lights, affordable/social housing elements, services infrastructure and maybe even schools. All of these require require a specialist consultant to advise and represent the client, among other things to see that he is not ripped off by the planning authority, put crudely, which is only fair. Sometimes the balance may not be, or seem, fair, but it is a complex business!
Doc Pete summarises things extremely well, thanks for that Doc. I'm not sure though why failure to follow a spec is down to the contractor who is failing to follow it i.e. failing to fulfil his contactual obligations. Sure it's him at fault, but someone has to monitor and flag it up, and require rectification and/or financial adjustment (e.g. architect/building contractor relationship). If a consultant has commissioned the work on behalf of his client, should it not be him? And should the work not be to the satisfaction of the curator (the planning authority) who required the work in the first place? (e.g. planners/building regs people - builder/architect relationships)
Re. minor variations - an hours extra work: verbal instructions are everyday in construction, on site or by phone, and get confirmed by AI (Architect's instruction) in due course. Usually the builder will have a pad of CVI's (confirmation of verbal instructions) for a handwritten summary of the instruction at the time. If archaeology units don't use them, the consutlant could use his own to give peace of mind to the contractor if desired. Of course any bit ofpaper would do but we like to look professional don't we?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
