25th June 2011, 04:53 PM
I certainly agree that the current commercially-driven model for archaeology is far from perfect, but the alternative is likely to be....nothing. Any lying down in front of bulldozers will be to try to ensure that some form of heritage protection remains, because what will be on offer if we don't won't be an alternative means of organising archaeology and fieldwork, it'll be a complete absence of any fieldwork other than that done by societies and academics, and none of that will be done on sites threatened by development. On the basis that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend', we may have to support a system that isn't necessarily an ideal way of structuring the profession, as it's the best we're likely to get in the current climate. Neither central government nor councils are likely to fund 15 (or however many) multi-county units along the lines suggested in the 1974 newsletter at a time when council units are being closed down or sold off, and if the requirement to deal with archaeological issues raised by development proposals were to be removed, there would be no need for these regional units anyway (or for the majority of the commercial units, as the amount of available work would drop by something like 90-95%). I know that this post will leave me liable to the charge of being defeatist and not being open-minded to the alternatives, but I'd prefer to say that it's realistic.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum