+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Yep..time for another hypothetical game (/showthread.php?tid=431)
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - himalaya - 11th February 2007
Ok, no details then - although i think it would help us to understand what this 'butchery' involved.
You say 'I intend to hunt the council and the county mounty into a corner on this-just for starters' but even if the timescale was fixed couldnt (and shouldnt) the field unit involved have thrown the required resources at this once the significance of the monument was realised?
What was the unit bound to do, in terms of excavation and sampling strategies, in the approved WSI? Did they conform to this?
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - 1man1desk - 12th February 2007
OK, looking at this no-longer-hypothetical case (not entirely a surprise) from a consultant's perspective, this is what I would probably have done (trying to avoid the application of hindsight):
1 - assuming the site was identified early enough in the process, I would have sought the relocation of the settling pond;
2 - unless the curator said no, I would have been looking to enhance the information available from the geophysics, probably through either resistivity, trial trenching or small-scale test pits, or a combination;
3 - if the excavation crew did find themselves with much more on their plate than anticipated, I would expect the unit to come to me saying they need more time/resources (and therefore more money);
4 - I would challenge the unit's requests, to ensure that they can justify what they are asking for - but once convinced I would tell the client that the request is reasonable and that they should stump up;
5 - we would have started with a Specification and Bill of Quantities that automatically built-in a substantial contingency allowance in the form of 'provisional sums', so that the bulk of the extra cost would already be included in the tender price (but not to be actually spent unless something unexpected came up).
The ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigation, if properly applied, has quite good provisions to deal with this kind of situation. It also puts the consultant in quite a strong position to tell the client that they should pay.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - drpeterwardle - 12th February 2007
So is this mistake down to?
The geophysics contractor - for not identifying the size of the barrow?
The curator for not specifying evaluation of this feature?
The contractor for not bidding enough money for this element?
Or a number of people for not re-allocating the resources.
I have to say we do not have access to all the relevant documents and or what was said at the meetings. I also doubt very much if Troll had access to these either. This all sounds like a bit of a cock up but personally I dont think is worth starting a witch hunt over or even to make judgement. I know Troll will disagree with this.
Peter
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - beamo - 13th February 2007
1man and Dr Peter have outlined some of the potential causes and responses above, and I would add a couple more points, although obviously on a general level as I have no knowledge of the actual site or circumstances other than those mentioned already.
Geophysics - everyone involved in archaeology should be aware by now of the benefits and limitations of geophysical survey, especially on sites with a great amount of overburden, which I assume was the case here as the kerbed barrow was not visible as a topographic feature. Basing a target cost for excavation on a geophysical survey is always going to carry some element of risk.
Further evaluation - this project may well have been similar to a great many other road schemes in that intrusive evaluation may not have been possible at a pre-construction stage due to landowner issues. Even with Highways Agency schemes, access can only be enforced for non-intrusive survey (through the serving of a Section 289 notice). If this was the case, then this site should have been flagged up for advance evaluation as soon as the Compulsory Purchase Orders were issued, although target costs for construction would have already been agreed. This should be addressed through a flexible Bill of Quantities that reflects the need for further evaluation and possible mitigation.
The barrow - upon discovering that the barrow was significantly larger and more elaborate than previously thought, all parties involved (including English Heritage) should have met to discuss the issue. I have not checked the Monument Class Description but would have thought that a well-preserved kerbed barrow will meet the criteria for scheduling and preservation in situ should definitely be the preferred option. The balancing pond (if that is what we are discussing) is movable in engineering terms - it can be made to work even if it has to be moved to a non-optimum location - but the issue may well be one of available landtake, i.e. is there enough room to relocate the pond without going back to identifying additional landtake, additional Compulsory Purchase Orders etc.
If full excavation is required, then this should have come from the identified contingency which would have been there as a result of the previously identified risk resulting from incomplete evaluation at target cost stage. It may also have been possible to ask EH to contribute some funding towards this. What is going to happen in post-ex in terms of the costs for sample processing, OSL dating etc ?
Beamo
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - 1man1desk - 13th February 2007
Of course, if the problem was only recognised during the mitigation excavations, it is likely that the Compulsory Purchase Orders were already in effect. This would probably have made relocation at that late stage virtually impossible, and the only available solution would be 'preservation by record' (a horrible euphimism).
I have dealt with a case on a road scheme where nationally important remains were unexpectedly found during mitigation works (despite previous evaluation by both geophys and two phases of trial trenching). We did call in both the local curator and EH, both of whom said that they would have asked for the route to change if the stuff had been found earlier - but did not ask for it at that stage. Instead, we substantially beefed up the mitigation excavation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - Sparky - 14th February 2007
'Instead, we substantially beefed up the mitigation excavation.'
Seems like the obvious answer to this case, given the available facts.
Poor show to the archaeological contractors and county council.
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - Unitof1 - 14th February 2007
Consultants and no evaluation trenches- made their money again that day and the diggers didnt.....
I am intrigued by the ownership issues that sites like this seem to ignore. Initially Troll mentioned a Farmer- now presumably a landowner who relinquished ownership under threat of compulsory purchase and was presumably compensated in some proportion to the agricultural value of the land. I would wager that the presence of a barrow did not come into the negotiations (nobody wants to pay do they) and possibly the landowner might have looked at it as getting rid of a liability. I bet not a single archaeologist gave them a second thought.
We now are mulling over the awfulness of it all and the how we would dig it and what did eh and the counties do about the barrow and what actually happened is that it got a cheap bit of a mattocking which is what I would suggest the landowners, if they give a monkies, would have noticed and said whats the big deal about any barrow which has added absolutely no extra value to their compensation and in fact would have been a liability to any development of theirs. Plough on
Presumably the archaeologists and the consultants were sycophants of the council and their numerous agents and sub contractors. I would suggest they are all complicit in ripping off the landowner of an extremely rare and valuable asset
Now the barrow when it was mattocked presumably belonged to the council.-US but I imagine that there were a few confidentiality relationships going on amongst the contractors- so there was no appealing to the plebs, I imagine that the consultants put that down in the first clause on any contract, âprobably no open days (something on the pen ultimate day- any school parties, the press? Oh health and safety- dont want the detectorists about do we). So Troll canât tell us too much can he? besides we are not allowed to slag off our own
And it is the same council which imposes TCPA conditions ..,. getting a bit to confused, maybe we should get the IFA in on this-ahhh consultants, curators and county council charity units-
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - 1man1desk - 15th February 2007
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:Consultants and no evaluation trenches- made their money again that day and the diggers didntSo what is your primary concern Mr Unit - doing the right thing by the archaeology or maximising the opportunities for field units to make money?
Quite a few of your posts read like it's the latter, and if so that is a shame - I hope that I am misinterpreting.
On the substance of your point, none of the information posted on this thread actually suggests that the lack of evaluation is down to the consultant; seems more like a combination of the curator and the contractor to me.
You will note that all of the consultants posting on this thread, including myself, have said that there should have been more evaluation and more mitigation excavation.
On your points about ownership and compensation, the known presence or absence of a barrow would make absolutely no difference to the valuation for CPO purposes. Had he known about it in advance, I am quite sure that the farmer would have viewed the barrow as a liability rather than a "rare and valuable asset".
On your comments about the Council, Troll hasn't told us if it was a local highway (County Council job usually, planning permission required) or a trunk road (Highways Agency, no planning application, authorised by central government).
On your comments about sycophancy, you are making pointlessly offensive assumptions without actually having any information on which to base them. If you are going to join these debates, please try to be a bit more constructive.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - beamo - 15th February 2007
Unitof1
Please reread my earlier posting regarding evaluation - I said that if intrusive evaluation was not possible pre-determination due to access not being made available, then the site should have been flagged up for advance evaluation as soon as the CPOs were through. This is not a consultant's attempt to avoid evaluation and reduce the amount of work carried out by field archaeologists, rather it is a reponse to the situation whereby the evaluation cannot be carried out at the optimum design stage due to access being denied.
If you know of a legal mechanism that allows access for archaeological works to be enforced against the landowner's wishes, then please let me know as it would make my life much easier on a number of current schemes and would provide much work for field archaeologists.
Beamo
Yep..time for another hypothetical game - Unitof1 - 16th February 2007
I see it as the council got something on the cheap and then got rid of it on the cheap and you all advised them -hurrah
Why was intrusive evaluation not possible pre determination - because the landowner/council thinks its not in their interests...archaeology sucks