12th May 2011, 11:11 AM
Unitof1 Wrote:Not sure that I have ever claimed to represent archaeologists. I do have a selfish view as to who are and who aren’t commercial archaeologists and I do think that the cba belongs to the era before commercial archaeology. That the cba is possibly losing a large chunk of funding from the government (believe it when I see it) might make them more representative of the “public” but the cba appears within this study and through membership of so called national amenity societies to be trying to gain statutory status within planning legislation like some outsourced eh.
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/news/090820-amenitysocs
I imagine that every civil servant in the country wants statutory status and all that implies
All I have done is try to point out that when somebody says its doing something for the “public” watch out. In this case they claimed that they were looking to study some system within SMC for public participation but actually no actual public guinea pig was hurt in the process. I don’t know why they suddenly thought this important nor do I know where they funded it from…but isn’t that what you would expect from a statutory authority…(ehhh?)
ok valid points