Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Unitof1 Wrote:
its not about us but rather museums. They don’t want the archive. If they did they would pay for it. If they did pay for it they would have a budget that would target the type and the amount of archive that they wanted to handle. “we” would then be able to construct our archives accordingly. At the moment a discard policy is mostly a dirty word. people take pictures for no reason and write reports that nobody ever reads.
If you say that museums must take all the archive generated by commercial archaeology then commercial archaeology should also fund the “whole” museum or rather create museums called museums of archives -redearths [SIZE=2][SIZE=3]regional stores- [/SIZE]produced by commercial archaeology based on the principle that polluter must pay and presumably the polluter must also pay for any subsequent use made of the archive, so for instance any so called academic research should also be funded by the horrid polluters (often the original owners of the archaeology).[/SIZE]
luckily for all of us the southport group have made exactly the same recomendations
two milestones already this month: agreeing with unit and having a post deleted (for disparaging unit)
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Regional depositories seems the logical way to go. But who funds them? I find my self agreeing with Unit of One , the polluter should pay.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Unitof1 Wrote:If you say that museums must take all the archive generated by commercial archaeology then commercial archaeology should also fund the ?whole? museum or rather create museums called museums of archives -redearths [SIZE=3]regional stores- [/SIZE]produced by commercial archaeology based on the principle that polluter must pay
Oh God, I find myself agreeing with Unitof1 too....I feel so....dirty!
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2010
I have no problem agreeing with Unitof1 on this.:face-approve:
Are the minutes of this meeting going to be made available?
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Whoo-hoo, world first, everyone sort of agrees, even with Unit. I'm thinking of calling the UN!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
5th July 2011, 08:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th July 2011, 08:30 PM by Unitof1.)
thing is
I dont think that the polluter should pay or rather I dont think that the landowner and all those with rights to the land should pay. If I was them I would make them pay....
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
5th July 2011, 08:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th July 2011, 08:09 PM by Marcus Brody.)
.............and we're back on track!
Who do you mean by 'you', Unit? Readers of the BAJR Forum? The general taxpayer? It was all going so well, too.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
those who commisioned it all in the first place.....
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2009
Regional hubs may be a lot cheaper than keeping boxes in museums. Having been made redundant as an archaeologist I've managed to find work as an archivist with part of the NHS doing medical research. This is a highly regulated business and vast amounts of paperwork have to be kept for long periods of time. I work in a brand new archive facility which houses the newer stuff but older boxes go to a very large storage facility in the midlands. They are kept in temperature controlled, climatically perfect (for paper) conditions. I think they use old aircraft hangars. The charges are very reasonable because they make a few pence a year on each box but have thousands of boxes. They also charge to return boxes to be accessed by the owners. It all runs very well. The facilities are regularly audited by the industry regulators. I can imagine something similar for archaeological archives could be achieved if there is a will to do it amonst the museums and major archaeological contractors. The museums would free up space, as would the contractors, and as RedEarth says, it would be easier to research regional finds if they were in one place rather than have to go to lots of museums. I think it's a great idea.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
5th July 2011, 09:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th July 2011, 09:55 PM by Marcus Brody.)
Unitof1 Wrote:those who commisioned it all in the first place.....
So that's the developer, then. Although most fieldwork takes place as a result of development proposals, and is required by Councils as a condition of planning consent, it's the developer that actually commissions the archaeologist to undertake the work, therefore it's the developer who should pay for archiving in regional repositories. Seems fairly straighforward to me!
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
