RedEarth Wrote:The title of this thread really suckers you into thinking it is going to contain some great insight into the issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Indeed :face-stir:
Truth is a three-edged sword (and such)
But I think their are answers to be extracted from a more directed argument.
Kevin and Barking are right. No one wants to pay the full cost of archaeology. No one values it as we do. The majority of those that like reading/watching things about archaeology have no idea how complex and expensive it is to rescue archaeological remains that at at risk.
I feel lots of people think we just scrape around a bit, then make it up later. How can that cost so much? The rest don't even think about it.
As to the police, they are paid a decent wage because they have to be. You can't competitive tender out policing. Only police can do it.
At the moment anyone can say they are an archaeologist, perform a DBA and/or mitigation works and as long as they can fool the under-financed county archaeologist team (or planning officers where there are no archaeologists) they can get away with it.
Even those companies who do have some archaeological integrity seem able to get away with almost anything! Who is monitoring the accuracy of the assessments the usefulness of mitigation strategies? Who is stopping the planning officers and Councillors making rash decisions that result in the destruction of archaeological remains?
I'm beginning to warm to the idea of restricting who can perform archaeology (at least who can run research digs, and run/dig on commercial sites) so that standards can be monitored (hopefully better than they are now).
If something that is needed is in short supply, people will pay more for it.