2nd September 2009, 04:59 PM
I really don't think people actually care that much whether we have beards and stripey jumpers or whether we are clean shaven and wear hi-viz vests (or indeed, whether we are women - who would probably have more sense than to be seen in a stripey jumper 
). If they are interested in archaeology they will be interested regardless. There is nothing inherently wrong with the system and planning and no reason why it couldn't provide a framework for improved professionalism/pay/conditions etc etc.
I totally agree with David that being able to explain the results of what we are finding (if they are actually interesting) at the time would be ideal but it is not always practical, the developer might well not be interested (and indeed wonder why they had to fund that as well - it's hard enough getting them to fund the work and the post-ex in the first place - would it be better if they paid for a big open day, perhaps with balloons and clowns thrown in and we forgot about publishing the results?). I get the impression that developers are scared in some cases that if they find something interesting a local group will spring up to try and prevent its destruction. I would also ask this - in the ye olden days, pre PPGs, when people were given the occassional opportunity to dive in front of a bulldozer to save nationally important remains, did they always have the opportunity to present the results to the public at the time it happened?
I think Paul is totally right about the public/private funding - that really isn't the issue.
). If they are interested in archaeology they will be interested regardless. There is nothing inherently wrong with the system and planning and no reason why it couldn't provide a framework for improved professionalism/pay/conditions etc etc. I totally agree with David that being able to explain the results of what we are finding (if they are actually interesting) at the time would be ideal but it is not always practical, the developer might well not be interested (and indeed wonder why they had to fund that as well - it's hard enough getting them to fund the work and the post-ex in the first place - would it be better if they paid for a big open day, perhaps with balloons and clowns thrown in and we forgot about publishing the results?). I get the impression that developers are scared in some cases that if they find something interesting a local group will spring up to try and prevent its destruction. I would also ask this - in the ye olden days, pre PPGs, when people were given the occassional opportunity to dive in front of a bulldozer to save nationally important remains, did they always have the opportunity to present the results to the public at the time it happened?
I think Paul is totally right about the public/private funding - that really isn't the issue.