Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2009
17th April 2012, 04:48 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I think you have missed out one funding option. During the 60s and 70s there were Section 53 orders (latterly renamed section 106 orders) where basically developers could fund archaeology as local authority 'planning gain' from their developments.
And lets not forget the the pre-1990 variant practice of coersion......if my memory serves me right the DGLA had an arrangement whereby a reluctant developer might be introduced to the EH Inspector who might drop the prospect of scheduling into a conversation. Generaly ensured the chequebook emerged post quick.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
17th April 2012, 06:09 PM
ken_whittaker Wrote:And lets not forget the the pre-1990 variant practice of coersion......if my memory serves me right the DGLA had an arrangement whereby a reluctant developer might be introduced to the EH Inspector who might drop the prospect of scheduling into a conversation. Generaly ensured the chequebook emerged post quick.
..not to mention Ken the coersion factor of those of us who could regularly turn up human leg bones from contractor spoil heaps!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
17th April 2012, 09:55 PM
and who was the cheque made out to?
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
18th April 2012, 08:55 AM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:... the Danish Milk Board were funding archaeological work in Qatar from the early 1950s....
as were Carlsberg in Bahrain - Bibby and the Dilmun excavations in 53
Your Courage Your Cheerfulness Your Resolution
Will Bring US Victory
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2009
18th April 2012, 10:12 AM
Unitof1 Wrote:and who was the cheque made out to?
ultimately to those employed to investigate and publish the research excavations....... and there was even a bit set aside to provide for a dignified retirement.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
18th April 2012, 02:03 PM
I would be surprised that there was a funded pension. But please do enjoy it to the full.
I am still intreged how the costs of the archaeology were accounted for after the planning permission was granted and charged to the developer through section 52 orders. You use the term ultimately. As I understand these periods, archaeology was sometimes incorporated in education cultural or museum budgets or combinations sometimes with secondments from other departments and ministaries.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2011
20th April 2012, 07:07 AM
If people want to read this but don't have a Kindle, or similar, then you can use the Kindle Cloud Reader. You just, obviously, need an Amazon account.
https://read.amazon.com/about
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
20th April 2012, 04:40 PM
I'm not an archaeologist, but I am married to one (the author of the book in question). I have stared reading the book and so I can answer some of the questions posted on here -
In 1986-87 68% of the people working in “rescue archaeology” were funded by MSC, in 1987 MSC provided about 1/3 of the money going into archaeological work
By 1990-91 48% of archaeological funding was from developers, compared to only 17% 4 years earlier
In 1986 Berkshire County Council transferred all responsibility for funding archaeological work to developers through their structural plan policy EN6 – this lead to ‘the first example of competitive tendering for an archaeological project’ occurring in Reading Business Park, with the work being carried out by the Oxford Archaeological Unit in 1987.
In the 1970’s work in Buckler’s Hard was opened to tender, but no tender was submitted.
I'm sure there is lots of other useful information in the book, but I've not finished it yet.
Small marketing message, the book is only ?2.87 (at the mo, priced in $$ so varies with exchange rate) so go buy it! :o)
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
20th April 2012, 04:46 PM
Interesting that I raised the level of MSC involvement in archaeology in the 1980s a while back on another thread and was poo-pooed by all and sundry - nice to see that my figures
were in fact right. Retractions all round, anyone?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2011
20th April 2012, 04:57 PM
Quote:In 1986-87 68% of the people working in “rescue archaeology” were funded by MSC, in 1987 MSC provided about 1/3 of the money going into archaeological work
By 1990-91 48% of archaeological funding was from developers, compared to only 17% 4 years earlier
In 1986 Berkshire County Council transferred all responsibility for funding archaeological work to developers through their structural plan policy EN6 – this lead to ‘the first example of competitive tendering for an archaeological project’ occurring in Reading Business Park, with the work being carried out by the Oxford Archaeological Unit in 1987.
In the 1970’s work in Buckler’s Hard was opened to tender, but no tender was submitted.
Stop!! You're ruining the plot for the rest of us!