Archaeology a roadblock?

[Agent Orange 11]

Who should pay for this?

 

Developers should, of course. They want to develop land, and if of archaeological interest, they should be happy to pay. If they are not, then develop land of no interest. Simple

[Boothybabe 10]

Developers should, of course. They want to develop land, and if of archaeological interest, they should be happy to pay. If they are not, then develop land of no interest. Simple

 

The only thing simple is you if you believe it is that simple

[geared 302]

How did the physical infrastructure of not too distant human history, old buildings and walls etc, become so totally abandoned for long enough for that to happen?

 

It's not like they're finding entire structures underground, it's just ruins and foundations of old buildings, along with random items and stuff.

[Alcoblog 10]

It never ceases to amaze and confound me that skeletons are only ever unearthed from underground.

[Cavegirl 10]

I reckon that when a builder wants to get on with a site construction so as to provide people with houses and work, it's criminal when archaeologists get in the way and delay everything, then make the builder pay for the honour. One of the troubles with this country is that it's too rooted in the past. Who cares what out heritage may be? Any comments, please?

 

The budget set aside for archaeological work is almost always absolutely miniscule compared to the overall development budget- most building companies don't mind paying for the work to be done because if something interesting is discovered they get to advertise their part in it. For the few that struggle to pay for works they can apply to English Heritage for a grant if the site is considered interesting enough. There's no legal requirement to carry out archaeological work- it's all done through PPG 16 Guidelines, but still companies willingly pay for the work to be carried out.

 

The timescale is usually a few days to about 3 months depending upon what's discovered, it's hardly hampering the future to wait an extra 3 months considering the information that's often gained from archaeological sites.

 

Who cares about our heritage? Time Team had 2.5 million viewers and 4000 new archaeologists graduate each year so I guess you could start with those figures and then start adding English Heritage site and museum visitor numbers. Our heritage is also one of the cornerstones of our tourist industry.

 

This may seem like a daft question but why is so much physical history underground? where did all the earth, that we're standing on, come from that bury's all the "history" we're having to dig up?

 

The main burial processes on archaeological sites are glacial deposits, alluvial deposits (flood sediments), aeolian deposits (wind-blown sands and silts), down slope erosion deposits and in situ soil forming processes upon the underlying sediment.

 

Most archaeological structures have been robbed of their useful building stone which is why we usually uncover only the foundations though if a building collapses and decays in situ this can also help to bury what remains.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

...4000 new archaeologists graduate each year so ...

 

Wow! I didn't realise there was work for that many archaeologists!

 

My brother is an archaeologist (practically retired now) and I remember that during his early years, he was always scratching around trying to raise funds.

[Mecky 10]

I reckon that when a builder wants to get on with a site construction so as to provide people with houses and work, it's criminal when archaeologists get in the way and delay everything, then make the builder pay for the honour. One of the troubles with this country is that it's too rooted in the past. Who cares what out heritage may be? Any comments, please?

 

But what if the Archaeologists find something interesting and the person who pays them makes a feature out of their findings and makes a lot of money as a result of it?

[Agent Orange 11]

The only thing simple is you if you believe it is that simple

 

Thank you, I think

[Cavegirl 10]

Wow! I didn't realise there was work for that many archaeologists!

 

My brother is an archaeologist (practically retired now) and I remember that during his early years, he was always scratching around trying to raise funds.

 

Sadly there isn't enough work for everyone, even before the economy crashed most archaeology graduates moved into another industry to find work. A lucky few find permanent jobs within the state such as working for the local HER's or English Heritage, but these people often find themselves in a highly competetive environment working way beyond their set amount of hours because they're constantly afraid of losing their jobs.

 

Fieldwork archaeologists find there's plenty of work whenever there's a development or infrastructure boom, but this country's not seen one of those in over 20 years so I, like many others, mostly worked abroad- this means constant 3 month contracts, a lack of pension contributions, paying for healthcare, no sick pay, no travel or housing cost help etc and to top it all off no career structure- you'd make progress in one company just to have to start at the bottom again in the next- as Mick Aston said, archaeology's completely broken, I absolutely loved it throughout my 20's but no way could I have carried on without having to find an office-based job, which I don't want so like so many others I've ended up having to find a real job in construction.

[Keen Mustard 10]

The budget set aside for archaeological work is almost always absolutely miniscule compared to the overall development budget- most building companies don't mind paying for the work to be done because if something interesting is discovered they get to advertise their part in it. For the few that struggle to pay for works they can apply to English Heritage for a grant if the site is considered interesting enough. There's no legal requirement to carry out archaeological work- it's all done through PPG 16 Guidelines, but still companies willingly pay for the work to be carried out.

 

PPG 16 is not relevant planning guidance anymore having been replaced by PPS 5.

 

Whilst I understand the importance of conserving our past, Archaeologists can be the bane of the construction industry at times. We often need to consult with Archaeologists to have Written Schemes of Investigation prepared as part of a planning condition, which then needs to get approved by the Council's Archaeology department of which can take an age in itself and can delay construction significantly.

 

Moreover if anything is discovered then the whole project gets delayed even further and the costs for these delays and the fees for the Archaeologists have to be paid by the client. Both of which can begin to build up quite quickly taking the project over time and subsequently over budget as Archaeologists never seem to be in any particular sort of hurry

 

Anyway forgive the ramblings, just my two-penneth.

[Lockjaw 11]

When earth had 100%+ oxygen,millions of yrs ago,

 

It was going well until this bit. Can you explain it for us?

[PopT 10]

A Man with no history has no future!