Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2007
30th April 2010, 01:54 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:It's then for the curator to rein-in the archaeological contractor's enthusiasm, if they can be bothered...
Err I usually find clients are less than impressed if the one doing the reining in is the curator rather than the consultant/contractor. Most clients can spot a fishing trip, and some think archaeology is one already.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
30th April 2010, 02:05 PM
:face-approve:
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
ah, sad Dino, i feel your pain - see! i knew Falling Trees would come in useful somewhere - "different thinking changes the archaeology"
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
1st May 2010, 03:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 1st May 2010, 03:57 PM by Dinosaur.)
Manuport Wrote:Err I usually find clients are less than impressed if the one doing the reining in is the curator rather than the consultant/contractor. Most clients can spot a fishing trip, and some think archaeology is one already.
I suspect most of the actual diggers following this thread would be appalled at the concept of weighting DBAs pessinistically? There's little enough work for them as it is withought people (which clearly includes yourself and Unitof1) not even
bothering to go looking for archaeology! Most of the best stuff I've found over the years has been by going out and digging a hole where there wasn't 'supposed' to be anything. Writing off a site should always be a last resort, and for a b****y good reason
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
WElcome to the wacky world of commercial archaeology:face-approve:... Clients don't seem to like too much being found. Though I agree that the new arcaheology is found where we knew nothing before... As a DC arch I would point to the gaps... and say... seek... with a 5 - 7% evaluation. the DBA has shown me there is nothing known there, which is odd.. :face-huh: as every other location like this has something. On the other hand, I don't think they are saying they deliberately don't seek archaeology....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Dinosaur Wrote:I suspect most of the actual diggers following this thread would be appalled at the concept of weighting DBAs pessinistically? There's little enough work for them as it is withought people (which clearly includes yourself and Unitof1) not even bothering to go looking for archaeology! Most of the best stuff I've found over the years has been by going out and digging a hole where there wasn't 'supposed' to be anything. Writing off a site should always be a last resort, and for a b****y good reason
I'm with BAJR on this one. I don't think they were saying that you should write the DBAs deliberately to write off the archaeology. The point being made as far as I read it was that the DBA should be a realistic assessment of the available evidence. If you start saying there is stuff there when the evidence is unclear or not there just so that you can get to do field work clients are going to get wise to you soon enough and think that you are trying to screw them. At that point all your work dries up and you have shot yourself in the foot.
'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
Odinn Wrote:I'm with BAJR on this one. I don't think they were saying that you should write the DBAs deliberately to write off the archaeology. The point being made as far as I read it was that the DBA should be a realistic assessment of the available evidence. If you start saying there is stuff there when the evidence is unclear or not there just so that you can get to do field work clients are going to get wise to you soon enough and think that you are trying to screw them. At that point all your work dries up and you have shot yourself in the foot.
INDEED THERE ARE KNOWN INSTANCES OF UNITS DOING THIS (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE !!! :o):o):o)) CLIENTS SOON REALISE THEY ARE GETTING WELL AND TRULY SCREWED !!!!!!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
I've written plenty of DBAs which concluded 'there's nothing there, no further work recommended'. However, some curators just seem to rubber stamp most DBAs, which shifts the onus down the chain to protect the archaeological resource (either in situ or by digging/record). Surprising how much stuff seems to turn up in the 'blank' bits on linear corridor jobs with 100% watching brief, ergo any 'blank' site ought to be investigated? - Co Durham for instance normally insist on a watching brief on any decent-sized area strip whether anything's known there or not, unless there's overwhelming evidence that any archaeology's already been destroyed - good on them :face-approve:
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Dinosaur Wrote:..'insufficiently optimistic' DBAs..
I thought that the aim was to be
realistic in the assessment of archaeological potential. It's in no-ones best interests to simply widdle client's cash up against the wall to keep ourselves in business, especially in the current financial climate. they're a canny bunch and will soon spot when they're being ripped off.
Going back to the original post, I received the same email and laughed like a drain at what they wanted to charge to look at MAGIC and Heritage Gateway on my behalf.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
monty Wrote:INDEED THERE ARE KNOWN INSTANCES OF UNITS DOING THIS (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE !!!) CLIENTS SOON REALISE THEY ARE GETTING WELL AND TRULY SCREWED !!!!!!
Actually I supervised for a unit in the mid 90s (no longer in existance) who wasted 50 grand of the client's money digging a 'site' based on an evaluation (by another unit no longer in existence) claiming there was a Bronze Age settlement there - all the features turned out to be where the farmer had been dragging rocks around ploughing (to be fair, always easier to interpret when you can see the whole groove with the rock still in the end) and, after further enquiry, all the 'pot' turned out to be bits of dried mud - so yes, 'optimism'
can be taken too far, although I think in that case the thing should have been killed off after the evaluation and can be blamed on the incompetence of the original unit (who obviously hadn't thought of, say, snapping one of the bits of dried mud in half and having a look at the 'fabric'). But at least site got looked at.....
