Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that only those who work within the developer / planning control system of archaeology actually understand how archaeology really works in this country. Redearth may be right and the condems are out to free up the system by getting rid of the professionals. It is however unfair to blame the few HLF funded community projects for providing what some may see as a viable alternative for tackling archaeology. The public are not on our side because they want to be involved in archaeology and the advent of commercial archaeology replaced the need for the last minute amateur rescue dig which if we are honest is what a lot of past community archaeology was. People saw a drying up of opportunities to take part in archaeology with out realising that it actually meant that their heritage was better protected. We need community projects and commercial projects not a mish mash of the two that only serves to get a bad job done on the cheap and degrades us as a profession
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Wax Wrote:I think the real problem is that the general public (and I include the media) have absolutely no idea how archaeology in the UK works. Even the amateurs have little if any knowledge of commercial archaeology. This leads to the misconception that most archaeology that goes on is research and is done for the sake of the archaeologists not as a legal requirement necessary to protect our heritage.
Not just the general public and local societies, I know a number of fairly senior academics who seem to have only the very vaguest understanding of how commercial archaeological fieldwork comes about. They view research excavation as the be-all and end-all of archaeology.
As regards the media, almost every story relating to an archaeological discovery ahead of a development is written to emphasise the unexpected nature of the find, and how the archaeologists were called in by the developer in response to it. This is despite the fact that most discoveries are made as part of a pre-development phase of fieldwork on the site, often with the specific aim of recording a site whose existence was already known, and that it's usually closely timetabled into the programme of work. This seems to be because the minutiae of planning conditions doesn't make for good copy - I've explained to a number of journalists that the archaeologists were already on site prior to a discovery being made because it was a condition of planning consent, but you can see their eyes glaze over (and why wouldn't they, it's not a particularly interesting subject, though I've always thought journalists should be interested in ensuring the accuracy of their reporting).
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Wax Wrote:The public are not on our side because they want to be involved in archaeology and the advent of commercial archaeology replaced the need for the last minute amateur rescue dig which if we are honest is what a lot of past community archaeology was. People saw a drying up of opportunities to take part in archaeology with out realising that it actually meant that their heritage was better protected.
This is very true. It often seems to be the case that the local society, which previously may have undertaken rescue excavations of this type, are unaware that professional contractors have been on site in advance of developments 'on their patch'. To an extent, this could be addressed by contractors taking the time to contact the relevant local society, just to let them know that some work is taking place.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Marcus Brody Wrote:This is very true. It often seems to be the case that the local society, which previously may have undertaken rescue excavations of this type, are unaware that professional contractors have been on site in advance of developments 'on their patch'. To an extent, this could be addressed by contractors taking the time to contact the relevant local society, just to let them know that some work is taking place.
It some times seems though they want to have their cake, eat it, and then eat someone elses' cake! Surely volunteers and community projects have the choice to target sites for more research orientated reasons, or do they feel a bit fobbed off now when once they were doing the very work now undertaken by professionals (although there can't be many still left from those days)? The lack of understanding is quite mind boggling, but this also extends to assumptions such as that all professional archaeologists are paid by the local council/EH/a university and so their jobs are not particularly threatened by volunteer labour (although these days that doesn't mean anything).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
redearth the threat to proffessional archaeology isnt community excavations it is the withdrawal of funding from her/smr development control. community archaeology is a drop in the ocean but can only serve to get more of the public on our side and hence up in arms when her's are shut down and hence more development work for professionals
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
P Prentice Wrote:redearth the threat to proffessional archaeology isnt community excavations it is the withdrawal of funding from her/smr development control. community archaeology is a drop in the ocean but can only serve to get more of the public on our side and hence up in arms when her's are shut down and hence more development work for professionals
I'm not saying that they are a threat to professionals directly, but I think they further confuse people's idea of how the commercial/developer funding system works and a move to draw the two together (as has been mention several times and seems perhaps to be the crux of the Southport group's suggestions) is only going to make that worse. Is the norm soon going to be a 'commercial' site with one or two professionals overseeing a group of HLF trained volunteers or a return to the glory days of MSC schemes? Some on this forum would perhaps think that a good thing!
Closure or withdrawl of funding from HERs is another issue, seeminly a 'Councillor Melton' act by the back door i.e. rather than announce an intension to remove the condition for archaeological work from planning applications simply close the HER/HES so it can't be carried out properly anyway, which is presumably also illegal under EU and UK planning law, but I'm no expert. I thought the situation in Merseyside had been at least partially reversed, perhaps because they realised it left them with certain legal difficulties? Does anyone know how many of the people taking part in community projects would complain about the HER/HES being closed? Does anyone know how many of them know what the HER/HES is or what it does? One might say that if they wanted to be more involved in 'rescue' work like in the good old days they might actively pray for the demise of such organisations so that they can, but that is just being paranoid.
If you or anyone else reading this is or has been involved in a community project and your local HER/HES is threatened perhaps try drumming up support from the volunteers to see what response you get.
Oh, and as several others have pointed out, if there is such a shortage and a skills gap developing why are so many very experienced people (10 years plus, and all sorts of skills and levels of employment) being made redundant or leaving archaeology? It sounds like there should be plenty of work for them! These a whole herd of elephants in this (very big) room but the answer being provided isn't 'we must do something to help retain these trained professionals', its 'don't worry the archaeology will be perfectly safe, there are plenty of volunteers about'. Fuck the professionals eh?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
you seem to forget that a lot of the amateurs were working on community digs before ppg16 and your brave new world of professional archaeology but you are quite right in saying few if any understand how the planning process works but the sane is undoubtedly true of some diggers
there is no chance of hlf funding the lions share of commercial archaeology, nor are there many community groups capable or willing to work to commercial timetables - but some will do work on development sites that otherwise would not go ahead because of the costs involved
amateurs are not the threat but unscrupulous undercutting and inadequate sampling strategies are - the fault is squarely in the commercial sector
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
How many times have I been to left-wing meetings where people are fighting amongst themselves and against other groups when the real enemy is winning the battle. Wise up people. Stop blaming others who care about archaeology/heritage and unite against 'the man'.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Marcus Brody Wrote:As regards the media, almost every story relating to an archaeological discovery ahead of a development is written to emphasise the unexpected nature of the find, and how the archaeologists were called in by the developer in response to it. This is despite the fact that most discoveries are made as part of a pre-development phase of fieldwork on the site, often with the specific aim of recording a site whose existence was already known, and that it's usually closely timetabled into the programme of work. This seems to be because the minutiae of planning conditions doesn't make for good copy - I've explained to a number of journalists that the archaeologists were already on site prior to a discovery being made because it was a condition of planning consent, but you can see their eyes glaze over (and why wouldn't they, it's not a particularly interesting subject, though I've always thought journalists should be interested in ensuring the accuracy of their reporting).
Also the story is often filtered through the clients own media and/or publicity department who's only angle is to demean the archaeologists and take all the credit themselves. They have no interest at all in what actually happened, or the academic significance of the archaeology.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Quote:How many times have I been to left-wing meetings where people are fighting amongst themselves and against other groups when the real enemy is winning the battle. Wise up people. Stop blaming others who care about archaeology/heritage and unite against 'the man'.
I do hope we could.
AS to amateur groups... I get support from them, because I support them, in fact tahts where I learned my skills before I was even 15 years old. It was the breeding ground for archaeologists. and we went on to be professionals, but fed back to the amateur - still do. The threat as Comarch says is not there... but perceptions - and until we look at ourselves and see why we exist, what gives us the right to a job and who supports us... then we may as well just give up xx(
|
