+- 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: standards anyone? (/showthread.php?tid=4047)
standards anyone? - monty - 19th August 2011
BAJR Wrote:Aye... and remember... the consultant may say to you, machine out that neolithic house... and you would be the one to say aye aye sir! just obeying orders..
So lets keep the consultant slagging to a minimum, the phrase let he who is without sin comes to mind as well.
Not slagging........just pointing out what actually goes on out there !!!!
standards anyone? - BAJR - 19th August 2011
If you have evidence of this... and I stress evidence.. then send it to me...
otherwise it is hearsay and slagging.
just saying. :0
standards anyone? - Dinosaur - 20th August 2011
I've seen some DBAs/WSIs and the like from other consultants that have suspiciously down-played the archaeology likely to be present and the mitigation required....this extends to a DBA on a major (as in very, very big) prehistoric monument of national importance (although for some reason unscheduled) where the recommendation was to 'cut one good section across it' [I can back that one up with a hard copy of the DBA]...and the same consultant seems to have an amazing track-record of not finding anything (repeatedly) during evaluations and watching briefs in several towns where whenever we take the tarmac off there's usually more stuff than we (and indeed other units operating in the same are) know what to do with....but then maybe they're cheap? ....have talked to loads of people who've noticed the same trend...
Curators don't have time to read and check everything that comes across their desks, so I'd imagine that any sufficiently long-winded and glossy-looking DBA is quite likely to get through as long as it looks plausible.... :face-thinks:
standards anyone? - tmsarch - 20th August 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:Curators don't have time to read and check everything that comes across their desks, so I'd imagine that any sufficiently long-winded and glossy-looking DBA is quite likely to get through as long as it looks plausible....
You're quite right, curators don't have time to check everything - although I certainly try to check as much as possible. We're not all stupid enough to be fooled by glossy covers though- give us some credit! You are quite right about the quality of DBAs - they are often exceptionally poor and Dino I agree that certain large consultancy firms are (in my experience) often the worst. This means that if there is a report I'm going to make sure I read with a fine tooth-pick, its the one by the firm which has a bad track record at producing such padded out off the shelf reports - glossy cover or no glossy cover. If a report comes in from a unit which I know, has good local knowledge and a good track record of producing quality reports then this might be the one I skim quickly. There are good firms out there who know their eggs, and more often than not their reports are the ones I trust enough to put to one side and perhaps not check in such detail.
The standard of DBAs is something that is becoming increasingly frustrating. What desk-based assessments need to do is assess - this seems to be forgotten - what I don't want is the HER data sent back to me, padded out with borehole info (that's not actually assessed in the report) with a conclusion that the site is either urban (so the archaeology's been trashed by past development) or rural (so the archaeology's been trashed by past ploughing). I've got a copy of the HER in front of me, one that I can manipulate in GIS and overlay against the topography, geology, historic maps, etc. Why send a padded out print-out of the HER data back to me - I can do less with that than I can in five minutes with GIS open sat at my desk.
What I want to know is what the HER data can tell you about the site's potential - I don't want to know about the stuff we already know about, what I want is for this data to be used to predict and model the archaeological potential of the development site. What type of archaeology might we find, what state of preservation might it be in, at what depth might it be buried at? I want DBA's to consider the known archaeology against the topography and geology to extrapolate what might be present on the site in question. I want to know what type of archaeology might be present and I want the DBA to provide an assessment of the significance of such archaeology. I want the DBA to consider what the development proposals will mean for the archaeology and provide a robust impact assessment. I want the desk-based assessment to consider what evaluation/mitigation techniques might be appropriate and to consider if there are going to be any limitations that might impact on such works (access issues, current land-use, overhead power-lines, the site's just been cropped, etc, etc). I want the desk-based assessment to consider if there are any positive benefits that might arise from the development - for example are there any opportunities to enhance, present and interpret the site's heritage?
Sorry - desk-based assessment rant over, but this is one area where I think standards really do need to be improved. As for curators, we're easily bashed (and often are on this forum), but please give us some credit - we're not all incapable of seeing past a glossy cover
standards anyone? - Dinosaur - 20th August 2011
Hooray! Good post! Hopefully all the DBAs going out of this door would tick all your boxes, that's certainly the aim, annoying when competitors get away with half-a***d efforts like you describe above, we've been the victim of that rather a lot recently, mostly from one particular large environmental consuultancy, having to do fieldwork handicapped by c**p from the consultants. Hope you caught the comment a week or so back on the amount of stuff that gets discovered in the course of doing proper DBAs, the data's all there in the HER etc and grey lit. I always have a go at 3D modelling borehole data, even if just in my head, amazing what turns up,,,,like an unsuspected and completely hidden late saxon/early Norman defensive rampart rampart buried below my current job - wouldn't have got that from the raw HER data!
Nice to get the curatorial perspective (although am on good chatting terms with most of the staff at the local counties anyway) :face-approve:
standards anyone? - Marcus Brody - 20th August 2011
I agree, an excellent post by tmsarch.
standards anyone? - monty - 21st August 2011
BAJR Wrote:If you have evidence of this... and I stress evidence.. then send it to me...
otherwise it is hearsay and slagging.
just saying. :0
I have to protect my anonyminity for obvious reasons so unfortunately cannot ....... we all know how the archaeological grapevine works........p.s .it is definitely not hearsay and slagging .... i wouldnt waste my time....just a salient point or two i have thrown in the debate........
standards anyone? - monty - 21st August 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:I've seen some DBAs/WSIs and the like from other consultants that have suspiciously down-played the archaeology likely ............and the same consultant seems to have an amazing track-record of not finding anything (repeatedly) during evaluations and watching briefs in several towns where whenever we take the tarmac off there's usually more stuff than we (and indeed other units operating in the same are) know what to do with....but then maybe they're cheap? ....have talked to loads of people who've noticed the same trend...
Curators don't have time to read and check everything that comes across their desks, so I'd imagine that any sufficiently long-winded and glossy-looking DBA is quite likely to get through as long as it looks plausible.... :face-thinks:
......there we are ............. not hearsay and slagging on my part .... THIS STUFF IS WIDESPREAD !!!:face-confused::face-confused:
standards anyone? - monty - 21st August 2011
Hefty back handers...
in all my time I have only been offered a back-hander. Did not take it. It was an extra 5k not to find archaeology - we actually found no archaeology anyway ... damn... so only cost a day on site and a short report.! A dishonest consultant would not last long.
I know of plenty who have been at it for years .......................
standards anyone? - BAJR - 21st August 2011
In that case, what you should do is contact me info@bajr.org tell me about it, provide evidence and then we can talk about it.
Until then.... it is hearsay and rumour. you talk to me about it in confidence and thats the way it is done. if you don't trust me, the I am sorry. but until you contact me, then you are going to have to accept that these posts will disappear - for no other reason than you won't provide any evidence
The AUP is clear. if you make accusations - then first stop is me - off list.