I cannot help with the quotes, but in answer to the request for comment, I
was trying last year to get some information on work which was done when the
M5 motorway went down through Somerset.
It is long before I got involved in archaeology that this happened, but I
managed to get some information from a former colleague who had worked as an
experienced amateur on some of the rescue work . I do not know the details,
but there did seem to be an organising committee with a supremo. My
colleague was extremely disappointed that the information still has not been
published, and I had some confirmation subsequently from another source that
this is indeed the case, although the supremo is still alive.
On the face of it a "supremo" would appear to be a good idea, but I cannot
help but wonder if a number of disparate units had been involved there might
have been a better chance of getting more published.
I have only the bare bones of the case, of course. There may be extenuating
circumstances etc of which I have no knowledge, and I'm barking up the wrong
tree but it might meet your request to start a discussion, especially if
there is someone out there who was actively involved.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Barford" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:22 AM
Subject: Mystery text on the regulatory role of conservation services
With apologies for any cross-posting.
For several days I have been desperately searching for the origin of two
fragments of text for which I urgently need a precise reference for
something I am writing. They could be paraphrases or extracts from a larger
text or texts and could be from the same document or two different ones.
Looking at the phraseology and vocabulary however both would seem to relate
in some way to the discussions at (perhaps a discussion document presented
at ) the EAA meeting at Gothenburg in September 1998 which gave rise to the
EAA "Principles of conduct for archaeologists involved in archaeological
contract work" but I have no access at the moment to any material relating
to this meeting. Any suggestions where this material originates will
The texts in question:
1) "In the process of archaeological rescue excavations, the conservation
services must play a key role of a regulator between producer and consumer,
and take care that the interests of neither side takes the upper hand at the
expense of the preservation of the archaeological heritage."
2) "In a situation where conditions require that on the path of a linear
development several different groups work alongside each other, the function
of a regulator will be especially important, supervising the working of the
different groups to a common standard of fieldwork and documentation. Here
it is also important that there should be a clearly defined single
regulating board, acting with established authority and responsibility for
the benefit of archaeological heritage, because the multiplication of this
function, and mixing of roles of archaeological heritage managers,
archaeological advisers to developers, and executors of commercial
archaeological work, can only lead to an uncertain situation and potentially
to a loss of direction and to confusion. In the present situation when
international development often extends across the frontiers of regions and
countries, it has become necessary for all stages of the archaeological work
which are needed because of this work - from planning to publication and
curation of the finds - are conducted according to the same international
The first looks like an unskilled paraphrase, the second in comparison could
be a direct quote.
Answers off-list please.
Perhaps on the list we could discuss these propositions, for example the
desirability of a vast all-powerful centralised Big Brother organization
which has the power to override the competencies of local heritage managers
in these matters and imposition of separate methods, policies and standards
of work in the case of a linear development cutting across regions or