31st October 2008, 02:47 PM
Posted by Troll:
If asked for such advice, I would identify key strengths and weaknesses of the UK system and advise them to learn from these in setting up their own system.
The developer funding system has two key advantages -
1. It means that those making planning decisions about archaeology don't also have to find a budget to implement their decisions, so they are freer to decide on archaeological grounds;
2. It means that developers have a financial incentive to avoid or minimise archaeological damage.
However, fairness to the developer means that developer funding also implies competitive tendering. Opinions are very sharply divided on whether this is a good thing. My own opinion is that it can be a good thing, if sufficient weight is given to quality factors in the tender-assessment process, and a bad thing if price is the only criterion. This does vary a lot between developers.
I would flag up two key weaknesses:
1. The curatorial system in the UK is too weak, because the curators are often under-resourced and insufficient weight is given to their advice.
2. There is no compulsory system of registration/accreditation for archaeologists, that can hold them to a defined set of quality standards and discipline them for breaches (barring them from practicing for serious or repeat offences).
The basis for such a system does exist in the form of the IfA, but because membership is not compulsory the IfA is weak and any sanction from it does not prevent archaeologists from continuing to practice.
Given some thought, I could come up with a lot more, but that will probably be enough for the moment.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:For this exercise, imagine a nation that does not have a planning control system and does not have a competitive tendering system for archaeology in place. It asks you for your opinion on the success or otherwise of the current status quo in the UK. What would you offer by way of advice?Welcome back Troll! Good question.
If asked for such advice, I would identify key strengths and weaknesses of the UK system and advise them to learn from these in setting up their own system.
The developer funding system has two key advantages -
1. It means that those making planning decisions about archaeology don't also have to find a budget to implement their decisions, so they are freer to decide on archaeological grounds;
2. It means that developers have a financial incentive to avoid or minimise archaeological damage.
However, fairness to the developer means that developer funding also implies competitive tendering. Opinions are very sharply divided on whether this is a good thing. My own opinion is that it can be a good thing, if sufficient weight is given to quality factors in the tender-assessment process, and a bad thing if price is the only criterion. This does vary a lot between developers.
I would flag up two key weaknesses:
1. The curatorial system in the UK is too weak, because the curators are often under-resourced and insufficient weight is given to their advice.
2. There is no compulsory system of registration/accreditation for archaeologists, that can hold them to a defined set of quality standards and discipline them for breaches (barring them from practicing for serious or repeat offences).
The basis for such a system does exist in the form of the IfA, but because membership is not compulsory the IfA is weak and any sanction from it does not prevent archaeologists from continuing to practice.
Given some thought, I could come up with a lot more, but that will probably be enough for the moment.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished