How should British Archaeology be run

[Gilraen]

this is an easy one-get rid of curators.

Well, I have worked in many areas with lots of different curators and one thing I would change is to make them all work to same standards and hire people with similar experience and skills. Some put barely worth it mitigation on a planning application and then don't bother to read your WSI (you never here from them again, even after you've submitted your report), some treat commercial archaeologists like pond life ('how dare these plebeians ring me up to ask me what exactly my mitigation is so that they can cost the job effectively') and some have such rigorous anally-retentive standards that even the simplest job ends up costing the developer thousands. It can be very frustrating and I would like to see a more standardised approach to everyday archaeology - ie, those undertaken within the planning system.

[Unitof1]

chazame and by the power of right before your eyes a curator is suddenly an archaeologist. I dont see them doing "the" archaeology and I bet that you dont see this point. and you have nicely ignored the doing it all before granting the permission and it seems to me that

if a developer employs a charlatan archaeologist to provide that authority with information or advice and that authority has to rely on other charlatan archaeologists to call into question that information

you basicaly relying for your argument that the majority of the industry is likely to comprises of charlatan archaeologists-well mate thats the standard then. As for expensive law suits we are not that important. But then lets consider what the planning authority might have to consider

1. Application arrives with no mention of archaeology-send it back no curator needed

2. Application arrives with something pretending to be archaeological consideration.-wait to see if during the consultation period there is any comments pertaining to archaeology. If there are no comments accept the archaeological consideration. If there are comments return comments to archaeologist for responce. hoo what will the charleton archaeologist say........how will they get out of this bind......

no curator needed

[kevin wooldridge]

But once upon a time we made do without curators.....planning authorities had access to their own little in-house archaeology unit at county or city or town or borough level. Those archaeologists told the planners what sites needed conditions and which didn't and the planners added the condition to get the sites dug. Seemed to work pretty well...and surprisingly despite the claims of the Thatcherites that such arrangements were an abuse of trust or competition, I don't recall a single occasion where archaeologists sat on their arses and pulled in cash for doing damn-all or near next to damn-all. Which is not something you can claim for the current rash of so called commercial archaeologists...

So if that is what Uo1 was suggesting we return to...I'm fully in favour. (I'd be happy of course for most of the currently employed curators to find positions in the county or city or town or borough units that would replace their present role...)
}

[tmsarch]

I'd be happy of course for most of the currently employed curators to find positions in the county or city or town or borough units that would replace their present role...
}

Very gracious of you Kevin - I'm a curator who works in a county council's archaeological team - if you're suggesting we morph into a field unit, then perhaps we might be happy for some of the currently employed field archaeologists to find a position in our newly expanded unit that would replace their present employers:face-kiss:

[Dinosaur]

Either way around gets my vote :face-approve:

@Kevin - I don't think you can blame all the dozy jobs on commercial archaeologists, it's the curators who think them up. We'd much rather be doing proper stuff...all that follow-on PX income from dealing with all the goodies etc and getting paid to write hundreds of pages of waffle rather than half an hour filling in a negative watching brief form, don't you know.... }

[kevin wooldridge]

TMSArch - sorry I was just trying to be inclusive before someone wrote in suggesting I was trying to get curators sacked!! I totally agree that a lot of commercial archaeologists would have more interesting and intellectually rewarding lives if they were to be working for the equivalent of the old LA units - so roll on the day!!

Dinosaur - I don't blame either curators or commercial archaeologists. They are both working within a pretty bizarre system....I was merely commenting that the previous system wasn't broke, despite the claims that it needed to be fixed!! I attended the IFA general meeting back in the late 80s where 'laissez faire' archaeological practice was approved by the 'self regulating' archaeology industry. I can still see the smug looks on the smug faces of those unit managers who in a couple of hours destroyed most of the local units in the UK for the sake of their own expansionist fiefdoms. I was one of the few opponents at that meeting. I described them as a bunch of travel agents masquerading as loss adjusters (I hope that made it into the minutes of the meeting!!)....I don't think subsequent events have proven me wrong...

[tmsarch]

TMSArch - sorry I was just trying to be inclusive before someone wrote in suggesting I was trying to get curators sacked!! I totally agree that a lot of commercial archaeologists would have more interesting and intellectually rewarding lives if they were to be working for the equivalent of the old LA units - so roll on the day!!

Dinosaur - I don't blame either curators or commercial archaeologists. They are both working within a pretty bizarre system....I was merely commenting that the previous system wasn't broke, despite the claims that it needed to be fixed!! I attended the IFA general meeting back in the late 80s where 'laissez faire' archaeological practice was approved by the 'self regulating' archaeology industry. I can still see the smug looks on the smug faces of those unit managers who in a couple of hours destroyed most of the local units in the UK for the sake of their own expansionist fiefdoms. I was one of the few opponents at that meeting. I described them as a bunch of travel agents masquerading as loss adjusters (I hope that made it into the minutes of the meeting!!)....I don't think subsequent events have proven me wrong...

Thanks Kevin - my response was meant to be entirely tongue in cheek - just wanted to highlight the fact that there are two sides to every coin. Likewise for every story I read on here about curators making bizarre decisions, having odd standards, asking for pointless work, I could equally tell one about poor standards from field archaeologists, bizarre excavation practices, dodgy health and safety and time wasting decisions/activity. Neither side of the coin is perfect, but it seems odd that some on this forum single out curatorial standards as poor, when not accepting field archaeologists can be as - sometimes more - guilty of some of the bad practices that curators get branded with

Personally I would have no objection to a system where archaeology (re)turned to a system that meant that local knowledge, experience and expertise could be fostered and developed; where those undertaking the fieldwork had an interest in promoting and sharing their work with the community that they were a part of; where links could be better established between field units and local societies, local universities and colleges to share knowledge; and where archaeologists could develop their own knowledge and skills in a more structured way with more security about where they would be based and the social and personal advantages this would bring. If this means a move to a regional/council/city/district unit based system then so be it.

I've worked across the country on commercial sites previously, but for the last 12 years I've also had the pleasure of being able to work and live in one county - initially working for a commercial unit and latterly at a county advisory service. I've learnt more about the archaeology of my area in the past ten or so years than I could ever hope to do working for a unit tendering for work across the country - something I have found personally rewarding. I also count myself lucky to have been able to pursue archaeology as a career and put roots down and settle somewhere. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive and a move towards area/regionally based units could, perhaps, help to address many of the complaints that many people have about the current life of a field archaeologists.

[barkingdigger]

Sadly Uo1 seems to think the removal of the archaeological "expertise" (and I use that word with trepidation!) from the Planning Authority will somehow open up whole new avenues of work for the commercial folk. Instead, once developers twig that their assessments are being ignored and rubber-stamped by the non-archaeologist planners they'll simply download generic cut&paste rubbish from the interweb like lazy school tykes, and hopeful Uo1s will find their existing advisory workload will dry up.

A return to County Units is a good idea, but we'd need to redesign the whole system so instead of letting developers hire the cheapest tenderer to deal with their site they instead pay a fixed fee into a pot and get their site dug by the County Unit in return. No more low-ball bids, no more cash running out in PX, and no potential spiralling costs for developers to deal with.

The current system is John Glenn's lift-off nightmare, where he realised he was sitting on 2million pounds of explosives in a ship built by the cheapest bidder...

[monty]

Put the commercial prices up to the developer....they can afford it !!........................and pay the diggers a wage they can live rather than just about exist on.....and yes a return to local authority units seems a good way forward..especially to cut out the cowboy contractors...(seems to be even more of these appearing lately)

[monty]

. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive and a move towards area/regionally based units could, perhaps, help to address many of the complaints that many people have about the current life of a field archaeologists.

Hear hear !:face-approve: