Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Actually I find myself also agreeing with Uo1, but maybe with something he didn't think he said....
Who should pay? 'those who commisioned it all in the first place.....
....which I take to mean the development control archaeologist and his/her planning authority. This is a question of national priorities. If the nation sets a procedure in place that ensures the preservation of the archaeological resource either in situ or by record it seems to me that the nation should make available the funds for that work. Whether they wish to offset the cost by fining or taxing the developer is an entirely separate and unconnected exercise...The difficulty with getting the developer to pay for the full cost of archive is that archive is intended as an in perpetuity exercise.
So whats to be done? Do we return in perpetuity to the developer and ask for funds to top up their particular portion of the record. Can't see it working!! The only way to make it work is to take a charge from general taxation and ( as in the case of pensions and heathcare and nuclear waste) commit the taxpayers of tomorrow to underwrite the cost of archive collected today....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
Throwing something out for consideration:
The issue of who should pay. With the current climate of pressing for tighter heritage regulation (House of Lords Thursday), using Cllr. Melton's comments as a 'litimus tests' for a possible sign of things to come, how will pressure on the polluter to pay be vented? How will the venting express itself, through lobbying pressure by those with 'vested' building interests, will this include a government interested in being seen as getting the economy moving again?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
kevin wooldridge Wrote:....which I take to mean the development control archaeologist and his/her planning authority.
But the development control archaeologist / planning authority doesn't commission the work. The general thrust of development control policy for archaeology is for preservation in situ wherever possible, so the default position of the DC archaeologist will tend to favour leaving stuff alone rather than digging it up. It's only where this is not possible, because a developer wants to build on the land, that excavation and preservation by record would come into effect. In that instance, and in the baldest possible terms, it's the developer who has taken the decision to abandon preservation in situ in favour of preservation by record, and therefore the developer who pays to achieve this. Faced with the presence of significant archaeology on a piece of land, the developer has the option of leaving the site alone, which would generally be the favoured approach of the DC archaeologist, or proceeding with the development and destroying the archaeology. If the latter option is selected, the Council and DC archaeologist will set the scope of the work required to mitigate this impact, but they won't actually commission it - the developer will be free to commission whichever commercial contractor he wishes to complete the fieldwork.
I would say that I'm not necessarily against the model proposed by Kevin of greater state involvement, it's just that I don't see it ever coming about in my lifetime. As I've noted on other threads, I much prefer the situation in Scotland, where buried artefacts and treasure trove is assumed to be the property of the state (albeit the crown) rather than belonging to the individual who happens to own the land at the time the object was dug up. It's always seemed wrong to me that in England, someone can claim ownership of a valuable find and sell it off on the open market, simply because they happen to own the land on which it was found and irrespective of the fact that they have no relationship to the original owner and had no knowledge of the presence of the object prior to its discovery. It seems far preferrable that such 'ownerless' objects should be considered to belong to the Nation.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
moreno Wrote:Throwing something out for consideration:
The issue of who should pay. With the current climate of pressing for tighter heritage regulation (House of Lords Thursday), using Cllr. Melton's comments as a 'litimus tests' for a possible sign of things to come, how will pressure on the polluter to pay be vented? How will the venting express itself, through lobbying pressure by those with 'vested' building interests, will this include a government interested in being seen as getting the economy moving again?
i'm still not sure how helpful to the heritage industry the previous government were and i'm certainly not convinced that we wil be helped by labour's return to office (although i will vote for them at the first opportunity). i think we need to move away from politiking this issue and focus on expanding our support base by producing better, and more relevant output
perhaps then we can have kevin's utopian fantasy - which i share
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
My Utopian fantasy is one that used to be shared by the LibDems who used to regularly feature the introduction of a 'development tax' in their election manifesto...noit anymore I guess.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Who should pay for my regional archive centres eh (I shall be patenting the idea so a small percentage will come to me  ) How about a joint venture: the state, a cost incorporated into each development (museums are generally starting to ask for something to pay for deposition so this is effectively already happening now anyway), and universities, after all research could really benefit from having material in one place for one region. I liked the example of the NHS archive warehouses - that was exactly what I had in mind (there goes the patent).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
just imagine how big your pension would have to be to be the curator of the sole regional lasts forever archive.
Lots + some- but then all your eggs in one basket, opps, start again-isnt realy most of the european neolithic the bronze age...
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2010
Here we go again. It happens every few years - this archive crisis malarky. It has to be the greatest cock up of all time, as far as I can see. How on earth can we demonstrate importance of archaeology in communities when the stuff we have found is not put to any use whatsoever - because no one can get to it? It is not surprising that we have the Melton's of the world coming out of the woodwork every now and again.
Hardly anything has been sorted out since the early days of this crisis in the 90s (before that, even). A few 'solutions' (Oxfordshire, London, Hampshire), loads of guidance and standards (digital, disaster, disposal, etc etc, etc etc), conferences, seminars, and heaven knows how many years of the Archaeological Archive Forum (AAF). There have even been questions, in 2007, in the House of Commons (Robert Key, former MP for Salisbury?? and Trustee of Wessex) about this very subject. Back then I heard that reps from the AAF and Rescue who met with the Minsiter (Lammy) were told that there was someone in the MLA who was a specialist in such things and they would act/respond. Nothing happened.
That person was Hedley Swain who wrote a key document (Survey of Archaeological Archives - MGC report) on the archive crisis back in 1998/9. He has just been made the Director of Museums and the Renaissance Programme in the Arts Council for England (which subsumed the MLA). Now that he is a museum chief honcho, and Melton is back in his box, why not launch a campaign at him to pull his finger out to come up with the ultimate solutions for these things? Drop him a line - I will be. He should still be at this address until MLA disappears into ACE in a few months time hedley.swain@mla.gov.uk
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
i have been an archy for over 15 years and for the last few have been working in the wonderful world of archaeological archives. i could spend the next 15 years talking about the issues us archivists face on a daily basis, but you'll be pleased to know, im not going to!
but seriously, the issues concerning archaeological archives and their deposition, or not, have been building for years and now we have reached crisis point. there are many problems we face but i think that one of the most problematic is the museum depostion guidelines. these vary, enormously, from museum to museum. The first is the size of finds box - we currently hold approx 25 different sizes and have to order in others when required - these range from a half size Oxford, large London, small Swindon etc etc the list is endless. then what to put on the box - label or hand written, what to write, or print, red or black ink, blood of your first born etc etc. how to pack the box, by context, by type, by period etc etc. then onto the paper records. All to be in archival document cases - various sizes apply. Some want each section of the archive treasury tagged separately, some want each section in a folder within the box etc etc. Microfiche. ALL musuems still require a set of microfiche. the company we use has to source their fiche from abroad as no one else uses microfiche in this day and age! That is just a snippet of what we encounter and im not even going to start on the digital archive!
As archaeologists we have to follow, quite rightly, strict regulations and standards as we carry out each stage of our work. Museums, however, can create, issue and enforce their guidelines (no matter how absurd some of these may be - and trust me there are some incredible ones out there i have the grey hairs to prove it!) and we have no option but to adhere to them if we want to deposit the archive. Then, after we have jumped through all the hoops - at considerable cost- we then have to pay to deposit the archive which can vary from ?35 to ?100 per item.
But then comes the real rub, because once we have done everything according to the guidelines, set aside money for the depostion costs and the archive is ready, the museum then refuses to take the archive because they have no room!
ever felt a better use of your time would be banging your head against the nearest available wall? i do, daily! but, its my job, and crazy as it sounds i love it. There is no better challenge than wrestling an archive into submission and finally getting it out of the door so it is available to the wider audience and not in deep storage - however rare an event it is these days.
the upshot we have to find a solution to an ever growing problem. Archaeology is here to stay and we need to address this now. I dont have the answer, if only i did, but talking about how bad it is but not thrashing out a solution is no better than ignoring the problem altogether and hoping it would go away.
So, to this end i welcome any debate that keeps this issue to the fore and maybe if we all pull together we might just find a way through after all arent we all in this profession for the same reasons?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Could archaeological archives be joint ventures with historical archives (as in county record offices) in any shape or form? Are there any good examples, I'm ignorant about this topic. After all, they are used by us and others for research. Seems a possible funding route too.
|
