+- 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: BIG DIG (/showthread.php?tid=1938)
BIG DIG - Curator Kid - 8th July 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by achingknees
C Kid
Can understand the frustation of the above statutary pipeline excavations. Just a thought - perhaps you should be barking at the utility company and/or consultant? It's possible that the unit was in a difficult position re client confidentiality?
Consultant? I doubt there was one - the report says nothing. The utility companies should have voluntary agreements to consult, arranged through ALGAO. They sometimes do, sometimes don't - it's all very hit and miss, as voluntary agreements often are. I will be reminding them of this though. The unit on the other hand, is supposed to be governed by the IFA Code of Conduct regarding the archaeological work they undertake. I wouldn't expect the confidentiality concerns to apply, because as a statutory undertaking by a public body, there's no need for it. And why so cagey if the work's all being done properly? As I said - it's a courtesy to let us know, so we can try and apply the general good practice principles across the board. And that includes independent monitoring. The local society is happy to produce method statements for us to see and advise on before they do any work even though they don't have to - it's a pity that some of the professionals seem to think that they are above the goodwill practices needed to make the whole creaking system hang together.
The really amusing thing is that there wasn't anything there - something I knew already and could've told them before any watching brief took place - if they'd bothered to ask.
BIG DIG - vulpes - 8th July 2005
Come on CK don't fob it off on ALGAO, it's up to you to foster a consultative relationship with statutory providers on your own turf. So what if the contractor didn't inform you until after the event - bad practice, yeah. But at least someone was dealing with the archaeological implications of the scheme. Sounds like you're just smarting because you were cut out of the loop. Another point - if you knew for certain that the scheme had no archaeological implications can we safely assume that you would have required no work had you been consulted. How you can make such a bold statement on a pipeline scheme beats me - either you have x-ray eyes or it was one small pipeline in a previously truncated area. If it was so obviously a dead duck why would an RAO bother - wouldn't it be better for their and archaeology in generals reputation if they just told the client (via yourself?) that there was no need. Just a thought....
BIG DIG - troll - 12th July 2005
Is it just me or is this subscriber consistantly sarcastic and soddin abrasive? It`s like being married again......
BIG DIG - deepdigger - 13th July 2005
He does have his moments mate!!
deep