Watching the Curator

[BAJR]

Much as I love em... how common is it that a Development Control Archaeologist carries out planning archaeological investigation and then monitor themselves?

As this is not being judgemental. It would be interesting to know where the Archaeological Advisor also carries out the work and see how widespread this is.

To start us off. ( and remember this is purely for information - to build up a picture on the nature of curatorial archaeology )

Fife Council Archaeology Unit in Scotland
Provides planning advice, carries out work and maintains SMR
http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/topics/inde...E07CCAE64E



NOTE. All I want is Council what it does and link to website. NO COMMENT OR JUDGEMENT - they will be edited.

This is an information gathering exercise


Criteria are: the same person/s advise planning - set conditions - carry out work - monitor their own reports and advise signing off conditions

[Marcus Brody]

Fife Council Archaeology Unit in Scotland
Provides planning advice, carries out work and maintains SMR
http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/topics/inde...E07CCAE64E

I may be having a particularly stupid Thursday, but unless the page has been changed since you posted the link, this appears to say that the developer should appoint a contractor to undertake the work - "It is the responsibility of the developer to employ a professional archaeological contractor to carry out necessary archaeological work. On request, the Archaeological Unit can issue an Archaeological Brief which sets out in detail what is required for fulfilment of the condition. The developer can send copies of the specification to archaeological contractors who will use it as a basis for providing a quote. There is a charge for this service".

[Dinosaur]

I've seen any number of HER records (several different counties) where the work (usually small jobs) seems to have been done 'in house', although less so these days, presumably with their increased workload and declining numbers the curatorial staff don't have the time any more?

[kevin wooldridge]

I may have the wrong end of the stick, but doesn't this situation apply to all the Welsh Trusts?

[BAJR]

The Welsh Archaeological Trusts' Curators' Code of Practice ... ensure that there is a clear separation between their advisory (curatorial) and contracting roles. So the same person is not advising, performing the work and then regulating the final product.

[BAJR]

I may be having a particularly stupid Thursday, but unless the page has been changed since you posted the link, this appears to say that the developer should appoint a contractor to undertake the work - "It is the responsibility of the developer to employ a professional archaeological contractor to carry out necessary archaeological work. On request, the Archaeological Unit can issue an Archaeological Brief which sets out in detail what is required for fulfilment of the condition. The developer can send copies of the specification to archaeological contractors who will use it as a basis for providing a quote. There is a charge for this service".

No... not stupid. thats how it reads. but also read on here:

Skeletal remains dating back to the early 15th Century were uncovered beneath the town's public library as a new disabled access lift was being installed.
Archaeologists from Fife Council are now busy trying to sensitively remove the remains, which were buried in a graveyard that at one point surrounded Holy Trinity Church.
The church, which was founded in 1410, served as the sole burying place for all the parishioners of St Andrews and St Leonard's right up until the 18th Century.
Douglas Spiers, of the Fife Archaeological Unit, is in charge of the excavation. He explained that pressure to find land in the expanding town meant that the burial ground was eventually built over.
http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/local-he...y-1-160861

Now as I was saying - This is just to see if this is widespread. --- often it would be a great idea to have an inhouse archaeology unit able to do works.

For Fife, it should be noted that other companies do indeed work there. so it is not closed. --- I am hearing of another possible in Essex. but will find out more.

[Bodger51]

the fundamental flaw is the manner of the question

keep going round between cashing in on the dark.

This is beginning to be too oblique and avoidable as integral

[Marcus Brody]

Now as I was saying - This is just to see if this is widespread. --- often it would be a great idea to have an inhouse archaeology unit able to do works.

For Fife, it should be noted that other companies do indeed work there. so it is not closed. --- I am hearing of another possible in Essex. but will find out more.

I don't have any specific knowledge of this case, but I'd generally be fairly cautious about accepting everything that's written in a local paper as true, as my experience has been that they're often not hugely conscientious about facts relating to exactly why archaeological work is taking place, who's doing it and why (witness the many stories about developers unexpectedly finding something on their site and calling in archaeologists because, hey, they're decent guys who really care about heritage, when in fact the archaeologists were on site from the start because the planning department told the developer that they had to be there, and the developer moaned about it every step of the way).

As far as I'm aware, Douglas Spiers is Fife Council's only in-house archaeologist, so I'd assume that any other archaeologists on site are contractors, and that this distinction has somehow been lost in the newspaper article. It may have been confused because the council is ultimately the developer on this project, so the contractor would technically be working for the Council, with Douglas Spiers being identified as being in charge because he's the employer's own archaeologist, who has set the scope of the work, and is overseeing it for the Council. There's nothing on the Fife Council Archaeology Unit's website to indicate that they actually undertake digging work, and if they did, I'd expect them to advertise it in some way. I agree with the general thrust of the thread, that curators shouldn't undertake fieldwork in competition with contractors, particularly if there's no-one else in a position to hold them accountable if their work is not up to standard, but I'm not convinced that this is an example of it.

[RedEarth]

The Dougie Spiers Fife-dom! I had heard a rumour...

[Unitof1]

It may have been confused because the council is ultimately the developer on this project, so the contractor would echnically be working for the Council, with Douglas Spiers being identified as being in charge because
he's the employer's own archaeologist, who has set the scope of the work, and is overseeing it for the Council.

So what wrong with the situation? As a competitive archaeologists all I see is another so called archaeologists get to do archaeology using somebody else to do the digging on whoever's land. They probably don't get enough salary of course . Whats great is that they dont have to do any writing up but get to play the great archaeologist. Must be wonderful

hay hosty just used google to spell check and coppied it back in, feel like I have invented something, wonder what that would do to the google algoritiom

if it was me the problem is how would you make more money out of the situation? but The most obvious conflict is that it could be imagined that this is the advisors land. A bit like a landowner deciding if they should do any archaeology or what archaeology on their land and to what extent. This conflict happens all the time in every council. Nobody ever says anything about it. Is there some policy.


Its interesting hosty that you mension

The Welsh Archaeological Trusts' Curators' Code of Practice ... ensure hat there is a clear separation between their advisory (curatorial) and contracting roles. So the same person is not advising, performing the work and then regulating the final product.

somewhere in here
www.scribd.com/doc/8773308/Digger-1-39-1998-2006
one of the welsh trusts in their not paying vat days took their council to court for non payment but that does not realy apply to the scottish case in question.

All that I can seethat wrong here is that the advisors should write up the site.