29th January 2009, 11:39 AM
Actually Mr "Dirty Dave".....
I joined several days ago.
I was not aware that you required me to announce it? (wink!)
Of course, we and "Hostie" know that people sticking their names on a list, is not THE aim, in itself. At this stage, I compare names on a list to the idea of those Myspace or Photobucket pages: "Yeah people have them and join them to each others' to show support but what practical value does JUST having your page joined to someone else's or JUST having your name on a list?"
It is the NEXT STAGE - getting those "joined" people on the list to create a real-life happening.
I have put my name on the list becaue it is free, does no harm and think that "I hope" it might lead to something but I honestly cannot see "how" this very second.
My message (at this very second) to anyone involved in IFA, Prospect or even this new BAJR Federation list is: "Keep doing what you trying to do because you might BY FLUKE hit on at least a part-solution".....but I do myself remain sceptical.
The "Key Problem" in my view, is the way that archaeology is funded in this country - "Developer Funded". If you remove that, then 95% of archaeology activity in this county ceases? Only the Universities and Amateur Local Societies will remain?
In a recession, there is NO WAY that a government is going to increase funding / improve legislation for field archaeology. It will stay the same or decrease.
An Archaeology Unit or Museum is a LUXURY ITEM in any society.
Priorities are food, shelter, health, education, jobs - that sort of thing. How often have we heard: "Archaeology sounds interesting but no one wants to pay for it" and that is true. If "Developer Funded" was not compulsory (and not replaced by something else), professional archaeology would be wiped out?
So perhaps, considerring what I have typed above, we have our first USE for the Federation project? Finding ways of keeping the public aware of archaeology, supportive of it? (The aim being, that the government at least continue to feel obliged to keep some sort of legal provision in place, however imperfect?) I am not sure how this
can be done without advertising funds though. This paragraph remains PIE IN THE SKY.
"Developer Funding" is what perpetuates the DIVISION within archaeology. Let's face it Dave, we cannot even agree on a CONTEXT SHEET LAYOUT that everyone in the UK will use, never mind the same pay scales, job titles, job descriptions or promotion ladders - universal to all UK units.
There is no incentive for units to do this because with "Developer Funding" archaeology, it is a case of every unit, against the other.
You could (in theory) NULLIFY the effect of developer funding policy, if all the units in the same county agreed to charge the same tender price, pay the same wages, write the same style / size of report. It would then be irrelevant which unit a developer went to as he would get the same price and service, from any unit. Units could thus get an equal slice of the action?
(How could a BAJR Federation group bring this about?)
Of course, are the most notorious undercutting units really going to agree to what I type in the two paragraphs above? They (the bosses) would be the ones who would have to increase the wages and conditions of their employees in order to "come up to the standard of the rest"? And would they simultaneously argue, that the top paying unit in the county, should also "lower its wages slightly" - to bring itself in line with the other units in the county?
Enough typing for now
I joined several days ago.
I was not aware that you required me to announce it? (wink!)
Of course, we and "Hostie" know that people sticking their names on a list, is not THE aim, in itself. At this stage, I compare names on a list to the idea of those Myspace or Photobucket pages: "Yeah people have them and join them to each others' to show support but what practical value does JUST having your page joined to someone else's or JUST having your name on a list?"
It is the NEXT STAGE - getting those "joined" people on the list to create a real-life happening.
I have put my name on the list becaue it is free, does no harm and think that "I hope" it might lead to something but I honestly cannot see "how" this very second.
My message (at this very second) to anyone involved in IFA, Prospect or even this new BAJR Federation list is: "Keep doing what you trying to do because you might BY FLUKE hit on at least a part-solution".....but I do myself remain sceptical.
The "Key Problem" in my view, is the way that archaeology is funded in this country - "Developer Funded". If you remove that, then 95% of archaeology activity in this county ceases? Only the Universities and Amateur Local Societies will remain?
In a recession, there is NO WAY that a government is going to increase funding / improve legislation for field archaeology. It will stay the same or decrease.
An Archaeology Unit or Museum is a LUXURY ITEM in any society.
Priorities are food, shelter, health, education, jobs - that sort of thing. How often have we heard: "Archaeology sounds interesting but no one wants to pay for it" and that is true. If "Developer Funded" was not compulsory (and not replaced by something else), professional archaeology would be wiped out?
So perhaps, considerring what I have typed above, we have our first USE for the Federation project? Finding ways of keeping the public aware of archaeology, supportive of it? (The aim being, that the government at least continue to feel obliged to keep some sort of legal provision in place, however imperfect?) I am not sure how this
can be done without advertising funds though. This paragraph remains PIE IN THE SKY.
"Developer Funding" is what perpetuates the DIVISION within archaeology. Let's face it Dave, we cannot even agree on a CONTEXT SHEET LAYOUT that everyone in the UK will use, never mind the same pay scales, job titles, job descriptions or promotion ladders - universal to all UK units.
There is no incentive for units to do this because with "Developer Funding" archaeology, it is a case of every unit, against the other.
You could (in theory) NULLIFY the effect of developer funding policy, if all the units in the same county agreed to charge the same tender price, pay the same wages, write the same style / size of report. It would then be irrelevant which unit a developer went to as he would get the same price and service, from any unit. Units could thus get an equal slice of the action?
(How could a BAJR Federation group bring this about?)
Of course, are the most notorious undercutting units really going to agree to what I type in the two paragraphs above? They (the bosses) would be the ones who would have to increase the wages and conditions of their employees in order to "come up to the standard of the rest"? And would they simultaneously argue, that the top paying unit in the county, should also "lower its wages slightly" - to bring itself in line with the other units in the county?
Enough typing for now