Don't Hate Me!

gavney1

Hi guys

I just want to get your input and help on something which you all probably will throw your pick axes at me for bringing up!

I'm not an archaeologist or much of an enthusiast, but have been annoyed by the whole field recently. The reason is as follows:

Our family owns a couple of clothing stores. Recently we decided to do an extension to one of our stores, and have been told that as we're digging, archaeologists have to come in to investigate the area. This part is fine by me - no problem with someone coming along as we're digging. And if it delays things a couple of weeks, that doesn't bother me either. I think there's no sense being uncooperative with other people's interests.

What DOES bother me, is that we are expected to fund the investigation!
Can anyone rationally explain this to me. We are being told it could cost anywhere between 400euro+VAT to 1820euro+VAT.

WE are the ones being inconvenienced by the archaeological investigation, the archaeologists are the ones who are benefiting. So, why are WE paying them?? Surely it should be the local council or the Dept of Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Not that it should really matter but we're not a big company, and every penny counts for us at the moment. So, it really bugs me to be paying this extra charge for something which should be self-funded.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, and also if you have any suggestions.

Thanks
John

Marchandire

I'm afraid that's the law as it stands atm. I think the reasoning is that the state is giving you a license to trade at that location, and with that comes a legal obligation to preserve or record any heritage located there. Whatever is found and recorded goes to the state (usually to the national museum), at which point the involvement of the excavating archaeologists usually ends.

I do understand your annoyance all the same. I worked on a hotel development in Wexford and two huge shopping centre developments in the UK, and believe me, the developers were not happy with weeks of excavation and tens of thousands in excavation costs

Archaeological excavation used to be the preserve of of the county and city councils, but was effectively privatized around the start of the Celtic Tiger boom years. So bear in mind that you're dealing with a business when you negotiate costs and time spent digging, and not any official or state body.

A couple of things I would say: there is huge unemployment in archaeology right now (82% according to some official sources) and the industry has contracted enormously. I'd advise that you shop around and negotiate hard on a price for the work. There are also a lot of licensed archaeologists out of work who would probably be happy to do the job on an individual basis, and maybe at a cheaper rate.

Secondly, I'm assuming the price you were quoted was for the monitoring of your building work only. If the monitoring archaeologist actually finds something, a team of excavators might be needed to record the features. Depending on what's there, this could add thousands of Euro onto your costs. I'd be very clear on that point with whoever you get to do the monitoring - try to get a quote from them on what an actual excavation might cost.

They won't be able to to give you an exact number without knowing whats actually there (if they find a viking longboat you're in trouble :rolleyes:). However, they should be able to give you some idea, based on the size of the area you're developing and previous excavations carried out nearby.

Good luck with it.

katkin

I can see why you're annoyed and I think your instincts on this are right. I don't know what county the work will be in but does your council employ a county archaeologist? Shouldn't this be part of their work? Maybe you should enquire from the council and ask them about this, also raise the issue with your local politicians. It is unreasonable to put this burden on a business, particularly at this time.

Riamfada

Unfortunately it is the law Im afraid as the developer pays for monitoring and testing. Best to shop around and look for an independent sole trader, you may get a better rate than if you approached one of the larger companies.

robp

Please understand John that archaeology is a public resource which is only carried for public benefit. Excavations purely for the sake of archaeologists are frowned upon and completely improper. The polluter pays principle is in action here, and really is the fairest way.

If an individual pollutes a public water supply they must pay the damage. Private developers who destroy a unique historical asset must fund the fieldwork. Shifting the costs on to the taxpayer is obliging an innocent party to pick up the bills of damage of which has nothing to do with them. By no means am I intending to slam development. Of course it is very important but I am certain in this case Irish legislation is based on the fairest possible principles. A good archaeologist/planner will do their very best to minimise risk but this can only happen if their expertise is brought in early.

givng

katkin wrote: »

I can see why you're annoyed and I think your instincts on this are right. I don't know what county the work will be in but does your council employ a county archaeologist? Shouldn't this be part of their work? Maybe you should enquire from the council and ask them about this, also raise the issue with your local politicians. It is unreasonable to put this burden on a business, particularly at this time.

County council archaeologists? There is literally a handful in the entire country. Their mandate is to advise planning conditions not to excavate private developed sites. They have neither the time nor statutory responsibility to do so.

katkin

"County council archaeologists? There is literally a handful in the entire country. Their mandate is to advise planning conditions not to excavate private developed sites. They have neither the time nor statutory responsibility to do so."

Can't argue. But why so few? Then they spend their time in the planning department, but when push comes to shove they are powerless. Pretty useless really.

You state that archaeology is a public resource carried out for public benefit. Should the public than not pay, rather than an unfortunate business or home owner or whoever wants to develop or extend their property. I know right know the country can't afford this and the discussion is purely academic. But as you mention there are few archaeologists employed by the state yet thousands of admin and other positions that are not needed and our govt are now trying to cut those numbers. I think it says alot about how poor the archaeological practitioners and other stakeholders are at advocating for support and services in this country.

I still claim that this shouldn't be the responsibility of a business owner, most towns, villages, cities will carry the potential for arch finds and putting the onus on the owner seems unfair and anti-development. Also, it allows the possibility of bribery and backhanders to ensure that the results of the investigation are negative.

gavney1

robp wrote: »

Please understand John that archaeology is a public resource which is only carried for public benefit. Excavations purely for the sake of archaeologists are frowned upon and completely improper. The polluter pays principle is in action here, and really is the fairest way.

If an individual pollutes a public water supply they must pay the damage. Private developers who destroy a unique historical asset must fund the fieldwork. Shifting the costs on to the taxpayer is obliging an innocent party to pick up the bills of damage of which has nothing to do with them. By no means am I intending to slam development. Of course it is very important but I am certain in this case Irish legislation is based on the fairest possible principles. A good archaeologist/planner will do their very best to minimise risk but this can only happen if their expertise is brought in early.

Ok, hadn't really looked at ourselves as the "polluter", but I can see your point.

This archaeology situation is a bit different to the pollution situation however, as in the case of an archaeology dig, you may be talking about a site no archaeologist would ever dig. It seems this way in our case. There was never any requests by any archaeologists to dig the site before we requested planning permission for the extension (and we've been there for nearly 30 years).

I imagine there's not exactly a lot of funding for archaeologists, so it seems like a development such as ours is an opportunity for archaeologists to get funding for a dig. I mean, they probably would never get the money to carry out a dig otherwise, would they?

But fundamentally the difference is that an archaeological site is not a "unique historical site" until someone actually digs it up. And it wouldn't be dug up unless someone paid for it and/or there was some development. A nature reserve or a beautiful lake is a "unique wildlife site" until someone pollutes it. People enjoy the Phoenix park every day. The small patch behind our building that we're extending on has never been of any benefit to anyone ever, or of any interest UNTIL we decided to build an extension.

I know there are exceptions to this i.e. where someone plans a development over an area known to contain ancient artefacts, but in our case, as far as I'm aware (based on the letters we've received), they've no indication that there could be anything interesting to be found.

gavney1

katkin wrote: »

"County council archaeologists? There is literally a handful in the entire country. Their mandate is to advise planning conditions not to excavate private developed sites. They have neither the time nor statutory responsibility to do so."


You state that archaeology is a public resource carried out for public benefit. Should the public than not pay, rather than an unfortunate business or home owner or whoever wants to develop or extend their property. I know right know the country can't afford this and the discussion is purely academic. But as you mention there are few archaeologists employed by the state yet thousands of admin and other positions that are not needed and our govt are now trying to cut those numbers. I think it says alot about how poor the archaeological practitioners and other stakeholders are at advocating for support and services in this country.

I still claim that this shouldn't be the responsibility of a business owner, most towns, villages, cities will carry the potential for arch finds and putting the onus on the owner seems unfair and anti-development. Also, it allows the possibility of bribery and backhanders to ensure that the results of the investigation are negative.

I agree with alot of this.

I also agree with robp to an extent though. We are in a sense "polluting" - but there's a major distinction.

I have already talked to a couple of free-lance archaeologists, one of whom was hinting at turning a blind eye to any potential findings. I have to confess, that I was seriously considering using him. But I'd feel awful about paying someone to pretend to do work. I'd rather take the pain of any potential findings. But I'd say it's something which is common enough

DeepSleeper

I see where you're coming from there OP, but I agree with the 'polluter pays' idea - I look at it like this: It is right that the developer of the site should fund the necessary archaeological mitigation because they are the person who stands to benefit from the work being completed, not the general public.

To take a different example - a developer/speculator buys a field (in the good old days...) for €100,000, then spends another €50,00 over the course of two or three years getting planning permission for 20 houses there. This involves all sorts of costs including architect's fees, professional planning advice, archaeological impact assessment, percolation tests, engineer's report etc etc. He eventually gets planning permission for the site and then sells it for €300,000 - He has made a profit of €150,000, so he has gotten a good return on his investment. Why should the taxpayer pay for any part of his efforts to transform a green field into a development site?

The thing is, most developers don't mind paying engineers or architects - they see this as 'constructive' expenditure - but they do object to paying for archaeological advice/investigations... If they can just see the archaeology as 'another box that needs to be ticked' on the way towards planning permission, then they tend to get on with. No developer expects the County Council's architects to design houses for free for private developers...

The archaeological heritage, the visible stuff and the yet-unknown stuff, really belongs to everyone, not the person who happens to own the actual site, and it would remain where it is for years if a developer doesn't decide to dig a big trench through it - so if the developer wants to develop, he must foot the bill.

Glad to see you are moving away from the cowboy who suggested he could sort it out by looking the other way - the profession needs to get rid of the few remaining chancers of this sort, so go with one of the more professional ones you've talked to and they will steer you through properly. Send me a PM if you think I can give you any specific advice on how to proceed.

Johnmb

gavney1 wrote: »

I have already talked to a couple of free-lance archaeologists, one of whom was hinting at turning a blind eye to any potential findings. I have to confess, that I was seriously considering using him. But I'd feel awful about paying someone to pretend to do work. I'd rather take the pain of any potential findings. But I'd say it's something which is common enough

This is why I think the existing law should never have been enacted. As an earlier poster said, you are dealing with a private business, not a state run business. That also means, regardless as to what anyone would like to believe, that their reason for existing is to make profits, not the public good. They should have introduced a law whereby a levy is paid as part of the planning permisssion (refunded if permission is denied) that would cover the cost of a council archaeologist doing the work. At least then, if something is found you'd be okay because you already paid the levy and are covered for the archaeologist's work at least. It would also help avoid "archaeologists" agreeing to ignore archaeology in return for getting the job!

Doozie

I can see why you'd be annoyed OP and hate archaeologists, but as many other posters said if it is your land then you have an legal obligation

Marchandire wrote: »

the state is giving you a license to trade at that location, and with that comes a legal obligation to preserve or record any heritage located there. Whatever is found and recorded goes to the state (usually to the national museum) .

and not to forget, moral obligation to your own history and heritage. I know this is a rolleyes effect for 'business people' inflicted with this type of cost who find it hard to understand that it is their contribution to archaeology can potentially turn the path of history. Without people footing the bill on land they own, we may not have had a history class at school.

The govt should give incentives to business footing this bill, but then again, the govt have their own dirty record when it comes to archaeology and excavation.

gavney1 wrote: »

I have already talked to a couple of free-lance archaeologists, one of whom was hinting at turning a blind eye to any potential findings.

I would actually report that guy and make him loose his license. Seriously.

Einhard

Hey,

Was reading the thread, and the question of what happens if a significant find is discovered during the dig. Does the same process as if it were found on someone's land apply? Would the owner f the site get the whole amount of the "reward" money, or have to split it with the archaeologist?

DeepSleeper

Einhard wrote: »

Hey,

Was reading the thread, and the question of what happens if a significant find is discovered during the dig. Does the same process as if it were found on someone's land apply? Would the owner f the site get the whole amount of the "reward" money, or have to split it with the archaeologist?

The issue of 'reward money' doesn't arise in this case - the archaeologist can only excavate on a site when they get a site-specific licence from the State and one condition of the licence is that any finds are handed over to the National Museum when the work is done - neither the archaeologist nor the landowner / developer are rewarded in any way.

Einhard

DeepSleeper wrote: »

The issue of 'reward money' doesn't arise in this case - the archaeologist can only excavate on a site when they get a site-specific licence from the State and one condition of the licence is that any finds are handed over to the National Museum when the work is done - neither the archaeologist nor the landowner / developer are rewarded in any way.

So if the next Ardagh chalice is discovered on a dig paid for in full by a shopkeeper, he doesn't get anything at all; but if I happen to find it in a field, I'd pocket a hefty sum? Doesn't seem particularly fair to me.

Riamfada

Einhard wrote: »

So if the next Ardagh chalice is discovered on a dig paid for in full by a shopkeeper, he doesn't get anything at all; but if I happen to find it in a field, I'd pocket a hefty sum? Doesn't seem particularly fair to me.

But the chances of something like that being found on a small scale commercial dig are so remote that there wouldnt be much point in legislating for it. Finds like the Ardagh chalice and any rewards given to its finder are aimed at chance discoveries of high status finds by walkers or farmers.