30th January 2009, 03:04 PM
Posted by Velociraptor:
There were exceptions to this - usually EH or equivalent digs on a few nationally important sites, that were done to research excavation standards. These were rare, but they used lots of people, so they form the basis of the rose-tinted view that many have of those times.
Units do tend to price on the basis of the lowest standard that they think will satisfy the curator. If curators could raise that standard across the board, then units would price to a higher standard, and none of them would be reluctant to do so because they would not be disadavantaged.
In relation to your comments on conditions for diggers and power relationships between senior and junior employees of units - at least modern diggers are employees, and have employment rights. In the 'good old days' that you look back to so fondly, circuit diggers were often nominal 'volunteers', getting cash-in-hand 'subsistence' payments instead of wages, and with less rights than a wheelbarrow. Alternatively, they might have been MSC conscripts.
To wrap up - I enjoyed the old days a lot. I worked all over the country, had a lot of fun, and worked on some excellent digs. I look back on those days with some nostalgia. However, I would not go back to those times under any circumstances. There are far better ways to give our profession the reform it does need.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I think a lot of the "older" diggers endure all of the above, out of memory of "the good old days" (1970s - 1980s ?)I'd like to reply to Velociraptor's long post, from the perspective of another person who joined in what he views as the 'good old days' (I started in archaeology in 1979, full-time from 1984).
Quote:quote:I remember ... someone (an older digger) saying that funding from the government was phasing out and everything would be paid for, by the developer.In the 'good old days', when archaeology was publicly funded, the resources available were tiny compared to nowadays. There were no DBAs or evaluations in advance of planning permission, and very few excavations were funded. Those that were funded were usually much smaller in scale than they would be now, and done to poorer standards. There was usually little or no guaranteed funding for post-excavation.
I remember saying: "But the developer will not want to pay for a big dig - they will only want the minimum".
There were exceptions to this - usually EH or equivalent digs on a few nationally important sites, that were done to research excavation standards. These were rare, but they used lots of people, so they form the basis of the rose-tinted view that many have of those times.
Quote:quote:What if, the Government, desparate to kick-start the Building Industry, relaxes nearly all archaeology planning reulations, to aid the industry furtherThey would only do that if they thought it electorally advantageous. Democracy in action, I am afraid. In any case, if archaeology was government controlled and funded, they would be even more likely to take this action - they would have higher priorities for spending public money, and developers would howl even louder about archaeologists getting in the way than they do now.
Quote:quote:Another huge factor is, ARCHAEOLOGY IS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. At least in the sense of units, tendering against each other, for jobs each month. You might be able to get them to "vote" for an agreed minimum standard of digging and report writing but remember UNDECUTTING has been the name of the game for a while and will get worse, if the recession drags out?Well, standards overall did improve after the start of competitive tendering, largely because more money was available.
If the heads of units are desparate to (job-wise) survive, are they likely to "vote" for increases in standards or workers conditions, when such things would further drive-up their overheads?
Units do tend to price on the basis of the lowest standard that they think will satisfy the curator. If curators could raise that standard across the board, then units would price to a higher standard, and none of them would be reluctant to do so because they would not be disadavantaged.
Quote:quote:It still has not been established nor "nationally accepted, in view of the UK population and government" that any one archaeology "body" represents the Archaeology profession in this country and can say YES or NO to government / industry and ENFORCE its archaeological decisions. Only curators in county planning departments can do this?Actually, curators can't do it either, and neither can the IFA. Our democratically-elected government makes the law, and no special interest group (no matter how ethically sound and internally democratic) can over-rule them.
In relation to your comments on conditions for diggers and power relationships between senior and junior employees of units - at least modern diggers are employees, and have employment rights. In the 'good old days' that you look back to so fondly, circuit diggers were often nominal 'volunteers', getting cash-in-hand 'subsistence' payments instead of wages, and with less rights than a wheelbarrow. Alternatively, they might have been MSC conscripts.
To wrap up - I enjoyed the old days a lot. I worked all over the country, had a lot of fun, and worked on some excellent digs. I look back on those days with some nostalgia. However, I would not go back to those times under any circumstances. There are far better ways to give our profession the reform it does need.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished