Informing Marine Designation Seminar

David Parham Bournemouth University

8th February 2007

The Future of the PWA Contract? The funds currently contained within the PWA contact should be released and used for more strategic research lead projects that can unlock the potential of the UK maritime archaeology

IFA Conference, Edinburgh 2006

Reviewing the System •  £1.2ish million spent on PWA diving contract (2002-06)

•  15%ish (£0.18ish million) of above spent on undesignated sites (2002-06)

•  £0.4ish million spent other works - publication, DBA’s, EA’s, buoyage & signs, outreach etc (2002-06)

•  £0.1ish million spent on PW’s annually from other sources

•  Plus £1 million licensees time (Peacock)

•  About 50% of PW sites have direct archaeological involvement

•  About 75% of PW sites are close to Maritime Archaeological Organisations

The PWA Contract •  The PWA contract is 21 years old and a product of its time

•  Worked well in past, but times have changed

•  Currently ties up 75% of Heritage Agency PW funding

•  Contact is restricted to monitoring, diving work & basic reporting

•  Geophysics, environmental work, post ex, research, conservation, archiving, publication nor publication are included in the contract

•  No longer an inclusive nor cost effective method of site investigation

•  Not the best use of limited public resources

Other Works Have •  Progressed work beyond fieldwork

•  Released interpreted potential of work undertaken in the past

•  Provided environmental data needed for long term management

•  Progressed outreach beyond the diving community

•  Allowing marine work to make a contribution towards the general pool of archaeological knowledge

•  Worked best were the site licensee have been included within the project

•  Have been limited as bulk of funds are tied to PWA contact

Other Points •  DWR’97 allows cost effective diving with licensees

•  PWA work currently contains much duplication of effort

•  Heritage Agencies are now managing PW sites

•  EH (& HS, CADW, DoE??) have capability to inspect PW sites

•  There are at least 16 UK archaeology diving contractors (MAG)

•  There at least 22 ‘Maritime’ MIFA’s (MAG)

•  Archaeology is not rocket science

•  Archaeological sector ACoP allows common use of SCUBA

A Solution •  Spread the PWA role amongst the sector – use specific or

regional ‘Archaeological advisors’

•  Provides close links with Licensees

•  System is already in place in many areas

•  Most organisations can provide a DWR’97 diving team

•  Supports concept of local stewardship

•  Provides locally based archaeological advice

•  Provide incentive for investment beyond Heritage Agency funds

•  Enhances maritime archaeological capacity

•  Broadens methodological development

•  Provides enhanced career development

What information is needed by the ACHWS and heritage managers to make recommendations that ministers can have confidence in?

1. Basic Plan of the site

2. Archaeological Interpretation of the above

3. Understanding of the historical context

4. Understanding of the basic environmental conditions present / and their effect on the site

5. Assessment of significance

How is that information best gathered?

1. Basic field evaluation detailing extent and key features

2. Possible detailed recording of key features

3. Possible geophysical evaluation

4. Desk based assessment including basic environmental data

What is the best model for providing long-term monitoring of sites and providing advice for licensees? 1. Use of Competent Archaeological Advisors !!

Reliable concise information supported by substance and gathered to an accepted standard by competent practitioners that are part of a transparent and involved system