4th March 2008, 05:05 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
stoneyciclewoman got us here and I think that she got into archaeology because she was interested in archaeology and is now starting the slight re-alteration that could quite possibly make her consider becoming a dc as the only way out. And I think that archaeology is an interest in archaeology and that?s about is sum worth- real navel gawking stuff. But what we have is archaeology is for and owned by the state and this has come to be pervasive and something that requires monitoring and control, basically restrictions with carrots and sticks and exclusions, disciplinaries and confidentialities- state secrets even and don?t worry everythings ok even if the whole bloody maps painted red. I think what we have unfairly diminishes the ownership of archaeology that is for the individual (including the landowner) and I pity the state that tries to honour or distance its self from subjects such as oppression, war and slavery or skewers the record by emphasising the banal which is something that the metal detectorists are pointing out in this forum. Or don?t you want me to think about these things- as some, how-funded, self-appointed, government within a government like algao will sort it out for me.
what I am trying to say is that curators should spend all their time recommending conditions and drop specification of works requirements and all other things still needing approval as a waste of time and tax payers money.
basically eating the raw bean
Hi
This is very confused stuff isn't it? You think that although landowners who farm are the biggest threat to archaeology but that already state control is diminishing individual ownership. You think that developers should just ignore conditions because compared to farming development is a lesser threat. At the same time you want to erode standards by not having any regulatory mechanism for assessing a contractors work but only have curators advising on planning conditions.
Archaeology isn't "owned by the state" but as archaeologists we have a duty of care to ensure that future people either can still appreciate monuments etc or at least have a record. Who else but public bodies can act on behalf of society as a whole? That is what we elect governments for.
No one is trying to stop you thinking about anything but I haven't read anything from you that is constructive or has any solutions. Its easy to snipe from the sidelines about how us curators don't do anything, because your not the one trying really hard to ensure archaeology remains within the new planning framework, being drowned in LDF consultation documents, getting used to the new ES scheme as well as carrying on the "normal" day job of assessing over 2000 planning applications a year , 400 utilities schemes, 4 DTI schemes, arguing with developers, reading archaeology reports, and of course getting slagged of by those field archaeologists who carry out bad practice for not understanding archaeology, who then submit un-acceptable reports which understate the archaeology.
Get real! We stop dealing with planning policy as well as DC there ain't no more archaeology! You and all of us are unemployed and the archaeological record is defined by accidental out of context finds. If curators stop checking quality then only the cheapest (and therefore most likely the worst) units survive.
Steven