Nearly ?3m of taxpayers cash spent on Anglesey archaeological dig

[Drunky]

Why restrict this to large sites, how about insy wincy little ones which have never had an evaluation. Like watching briefs for little old ladies.

I agree it shouldn't be restricted to larger sites, especially if the old ladys site had free standing Neolithic and Bronze age archaeology, 3 trenching reports stating there was archaeology pretty much everywhere, and two geophysical surveys saying the same thing, as well as about a 150 years worth of published antiquarian articles talking about the archaeological finds farm workers have dug up there.

I think we should be worried about this news paper piece, it was badly researched and seemed to have been designed to attack archaeology, the real question that the reporter should have asked is why any of it happen at with all with what was known about the site? I first worked on this site 7ish years ago and i met people who had worked on it years before, for some reason they couldn't let this site go, that being the case i am sure that there were groups of people making a lots of money out this project.

[Oxbeast]

@Drunky, maybe you should try to contact the editor of the newspaper and ask for a right to reply article, or write a letter in to the letters page. Shame they don't have comments below the line or you could link to this thread.

@Sparky,[QUOTE]archaeolo

[Unitof1]

So how do you work out a tender for a "Strip, Map and Sample". Did the strip map and sample go to tender?

[Sparky]

I agree Oxo, and with the overlying sentiments expressed in this thread that the archaeology is being scape-goated. I would be very surprised that this came as a shock to the council as the management and financial systems should have kept tabs on expenditure. But as to why the council agreed to build on this site which clearly has archaeology of national significance remains puzzling when obviously, as is often the case, the archaeological works are likely to be very pricey. And perhaps more perplexing, if they did agree to the works with the likely costs in mind, then maybe the council would like to explain why they are complaing.

I hope the archaeologists involved kept a decent paper trail.

[Unitof1]

sparky

I dont see why they need any type of paper trail. They must have been laughing all the way to bank or to their

The defined benefit pension scheme provides benefits based on an average of pension able salaries prior to the date of normal or early retirement, or of leaving the service of the company, whichever is the earlier. The assets of the scheme are held separately from those of the company, being invested with an insurance company in a joint pension scheme with other Archaeological trusts- The Archaeological Organizations Pension Scheme. The actuarial reports do not enable each charity to identify the shares of underlying assets and liabilities on a consistent or reasonable basis. As a result the charity is unable to comply with the full provisions of FRS 17. Disclosure is made as if the scheme were a defined contribution scheme although additional disclosures are made of the overall group scheme’s funding provision and assumptions used in arriving at funding levels

Bizarre. Dunky did you get any of the "The Archaeological Organisations Pension Scheme"?

I wonder if organisations in "The Archaeological Organisations Pension Scheme"? compete against each other for work?

[Marcus Brody]

Please PLEASE PLEASE change the record, Unit. We all know you've got a bee in your bonnet about pensions, but mentioning it in relation to almost every topic of discussion is pretty tedious (as well as giving the impression you're a single-issue obsessive, which I'm sure is not the case). Some of your contributions have been relevant, interesting, and even funny, but my heart sinks when I see yet another diatribe against pensions or charities or volunteers, as I know that it's likely to derail the thread, and that the original topic will be lost in a series of arguments that have been rehearsed numerous times already.

Some people get pensions, good for them, get over it.

[Unitof1]

Brody this perticular pension setup might suggest that there is not a clear cut competative market place for commercial archaeologistys in wales. This particular pension presumably also feeds the curators who work for the same trust!!! It is also my experience that the "digger"s who often consider themselves the archaeologists on these sites are often not party to these pensions and to the bigger picture. I am sure that Dunky did a great job on site but for me commercial archaeology is a much bigger picture involving the exploitation of the digger. who often in my view suffer from Stockholm syndrome and dont like to admit that they regualrly are involved in trashing sites deftly? clueless to what the contract was or who the client is, greatful for the experience or a job and will even volunnettr for the privelege of abuse.

How would you work out a tender for a "Strip, Map and Sample"?

[Marcus Brody]

Whether some employees of the company that undertook the work get pensions or not makes no difference to the tendering process, assuming that it was open (indeed, if a company that pays pension contributions tenders against one that does not, it would potentially be at a competitive disadvantage because of the additional cost of providing the scheme). Knowing your particular concerns, I think you'd be better served focusing on the tendering process itself, rather than whether the winning organisation provides pensions or not. If the tendering process was open, and the trust won the job against other commercial companies, then the fact that some of their employees pay into a pension scheme is neither here not there - their bid was the lowest, irrespective of pensions.

I've said on other threads that I'm not particularly comfortable with one organisation acting as both curator and contractor, as no matter how many firewalls are theoretically in place, there's still the potential for conflict of interest (or even just the perception of conflict of interest from outside), so I'd share your concerns about the potential for a non-competitive market in that regard, but as I said, this is a separate issue to whether employees of the trust have a pension scheme or not.

Another thread successfully diverted!

[kevin wooldridge]

I can't imagine that the sampling strategy, in this instance SMS, would have made any difference to the tendering process as I am pretty sure that tenderers would have quoted a price based on the understanding that was the technique to e used... Surely isn't that always the case. Tenderers are asked to quote based on specific tasks outlined by the curator.. I can't imagine how any tendering process could be comparable unless the tenderers weren't quoting like for like.

On a personal level we use SMS quite a lot in Norway (we call it 'flatedekking' over here, meaning literally 'flat coverage') and it works well with the appropriate kind of site. Like all sampling techniques it needs a little thought ahead of application.......but there is nothing wrong with it. It is at the end of the day expedient. When was the last time any of us had the time or finance to 100% hand excavate a whole site?

[Unitof1]

Seems to me that this is trying to do excavation without an evaluation. I would like someone to show me where in the manual its says that you can do that.

You might end up with this situation

[SIZE=3]When was the last time any of us had the time or finance to 100% hand excavate a whole site?
[/SIZE]

But that should be after a proper full inexpensive evaluation by trench. I don’t see how you could have prepared to make any tender for this site other than asking for an open cheque book. If you didn’t ask for an open cheque book you cant have had any concern about having the time or finance to 100% hand excavate a whole site or worrying that anybody would complain-like the curator….

[SIZE=3]If the tendering process was open, and the trust won the job against other commercial companies, then the fact that some of their employees pay into a pension scheme is neither here not there - their bid was the lowest, irrespective of pensions.
[/SIZE]

Not sure that the word commercial archaeology should be applied to any archaeology in wales. The “trusts” are subsidised

http://cadw.wales.gov.uk/about/partnershipsandprojects/aboutpartners/welsharchtrust/?lang=en

the pension/trust is a civil service scam

and they don’t pay any VAT.

archaeology in wales must be a stitchup from start to finish

I am starting to get the feeling that there was no tendering process to this job. Be interesting if it was European money.