How should British Archaeology be run

[Unitof1]

haha archaeology a growth sector in the public sector dream on and it failed last time round and is still failing and yes any curator who thinks that county units are the answer is sorry tsmarsh not a very bright light. keep your eye on your pension and good luck.

Personally I would have no objection to a system where archaeology (re)turned to
a system that meant that local knowledge, experience and expertise could be
fostered and developed;

well I think that archaeological objection system within the planning procedure would lead to local knowledge and experience of archaeologists being valued by the developers and the planning authority. Why should they put any trust in advice that was not local particularly if you are going to be around next time and can point out the inconsistancies and previous presidents. As it is now so called local knowledge and experience is only asked of the curators, not the archaeologists. Thats what wrong with the system.

Around my way currently I have two out of county charity units working, both got in predetermination eia work through mystierious tendering events which I have yet to find any transparancy for. and its all been sorted out without a single reference to me and several other "independant" archaeologists. Obviously I am not put out because this is the way it has always been.

Now the only thing that I could have done to get my card noticed in this situation is to have objected to the schemes at the consultation stage. And If I had objected to these schemes and my real main objection is that acces to the tender and I have objected in the past I would have been refered to the curator who would tell me that everything was under their control and ok and horse has bolted. If it was predetermination I probably would hit confidetiallity statements from the curators. If I was to object further I would have had to try and force a public enquiry which I have done in the past. My experience of all that is dont try and force a public enquiry on archaeological grounds because you will have the whole gang of them saying that everything was ok with the curator. (by this stage the curator will be called the "county archaeologist" and you will be called a member of the public) And of course everything is ok with the curator pension but it aint with mine.

[Sith]

Around my way currently I have two out of county charity units working, both got in predetermination eia work through mystierious tendering events which I have yet to find any transparancy for. and its all been sorted out without a single reference to me and several other "independant" archaeologists.

By mysterious, I take it that you mean you (and the other 'independents') weren't invited to submit a tender for a contract being let by a private sector developer.

[P Prentice]

surely unit if you can provide substansive reasoned argument to a public enquirey and your credentials are sound, subsequent judgements will be based on that argument and your credibility. i can see that a lone oporator might lack funds but if your argument is credible you could seek assistance from other interested parties and of course the ifa

[Unitof1]

utilities and drainage board- both seem to have a cirtain amount of being their own authorising authority but the curators would say that they have managed the process in accordance with god knows what planning policy framework change its name tommorow and who evers doing the work is complying with what ever scheme of works.

What I am saying is that the curators manage the objection system as far as archaeology goes and archaeologists have had to give or rather have had their adverserial responsibilities taken away from them. If you like my responsibility to say that another archaeologist should do better or that I should be paid more. Basically if you dont get onto a tender, lose a tender, you move on, you dont go back and look at it ever again. Its left to the curators and if you like the ifa. Archaeologists dont see the objection system as the time to say I think that their should be more sampling, radiocarbon dates in this project as a matter of right. It seems to me that using the objection system can only put more money into the archaeology.

[Unitof1]

yes prentise but what I am saying is that should be the standard method or threat to all scheme of works which can only come to be so if curators are taken out of the system.```````````````````````````I recently had the main organisor of the objectors to a windfarm come for a chat. The problem I had with it all was that I couldnt give a monkeys because they were not offering me any money and realy the archaeology side has been sorted.

but I could see that if I did get involved I would basically be against the curators and the consultants (although they would probably like to say that they were nutral) They would probably make some money out of the process and infact if I did a lot of moaning maybe they would have to do some extra noddy survey.

[P Prentice]

given that most projects end in some kind of report it is quite easy to provide a critique of any inadequacy and such a critique can be published for all to see

[Unitof1]

and how does that help get rid of curators?

[P Prentice]

you are saying they do an inadequate job - prove it

[Dinosaur]

Put the commercial prices up to the developer....they can afford it !!...

...errr...I've worked on a few jobs for small builders etc where they've been pretty much scuppered by the costs of 'unexpected' archaeology, in several cases due to poor advice either from their 'consultant' or the local curatorial service - and I can think of plenty of schemes that have just never happened due to potential archaeological costs so that the landowner is left stuck with a 'poisonous' bit of land they can't re-sell....I can well believe that some developers have gone titsup due to archaeology, their margins aren't all that big

[Wax]

Huum..... so are people saying that a high proportion of curators (heads of local government archaeology services) do not have the field experience to enable them to set the most appropriate mitigation for developments?

Seems we have some how got the profession into a bit of a mess so how do we sort it out? Especially if the next generation of archaeologist are not being trained.