Hypothetical games

[troll]

Curator issues vastly inadequate spec in advance of fieldwork on a nationally important urban site set in a conservation area. Local commercial unit secures the contract and writes an extremely inadequate method statement/project design.This is accepted by the curator. Despite method statement/project design stating that a single context system is to be utilized on site-no such thing happens and the site is excavated as if it were a rural evaluation.Three days before the end of the excavation schedule, large amounts of archaeology is left un-explored/recorded and to make matters worse, a completely untouched and intact prehistoric landscape (with BA finds and features) is discovered to underlay the site under excavation.Site staff immediately contact grown ups.The last day of the excavation arrives and the curator did`nt attend or contact site staff. Site staff go their separate ways and leave behind them, an unfinished site and a well preserved prehistoric landscape. The developer paid a commercial unit to undertake the excavations to the requirements of the curator. Who is responsible? The curator or the commercial unit?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Cautionary Tale]

It would depend very much on whether the unit fullfilled the aims of the spec. If they did, then it would be up to the curator to make representations regarding the preservation by record or in situ of the unexcavated remains.

Incidentally, I've used nothing but a single unit context system in the last 10 years regardless of whether the site was urban or rural.

Desiderate le fritture con quello?

[BAJR Host]

Was actually discussing the Single COntext system (SCS) tuther day...

SCS should be now standard.. though SCS planning should only really be needed in deep strat urban sites - May as well draw all the contexts on one plan in rural site (unless it is very complicated.

However back to the original question... until curators actually sing from the same hymn sheet... as in one curators 20% eval is anothers watching brief... or one might be more hands on than another... I also like the fact that as a contractor / consultant (outwith my counties) I am wise to all the scams and tweaks that one might try to get a job and satisfy a client as well as the curator... ie... trench locations.... percentages, bit of science bafflement! etc.... So I don't fall for it. (not saying anyone trys of course)

If the WSI from the contractor says they will do x y and z... but in the end they only do x and z they had better have a good excuse for it... otherwise the condition has not been met... and the planning condition has actually been breached. Now of course what you might not be aware of is COntractor A talking to Curator B during the course of the work... and agreeing to changes.. Which might be justified... (or maybe not) The question would be ... has the BA horizon been damaged by construction work? The other is - what were the exact requirements for/from the WSI.... the final one would be... Did the Curator agree to hte site ending in this manner (it seems clear that they were made aware.)

As Barnesy said... If the COntractor fulfilled the spec to the letter.. then it is up to the curator to come up with a case that must be accepted by the planning department (who of course could ignore the advice - Roll on Statutory Power!!)

Another day another WSI?

[troll]

Thanks to all so far.In this hypothetical scenario, an untouched and un- contaminated buried land surface has been seen to host the following:
1. a complete turf-subsoil-natural sequence with beetle/seed etc in abundance(all sealed by wind blown sands)
2. an assemblage of lithic tools and debitage including diagnostics suggesting a Bronze-Age date as a minimum
3. a linear ditch with one fill containing lithic debitage and tools

So, whats the ideal/expected/ predicted response of a curator? For arguements sake-lets assume that 1 to 3 were encountered within a 6 metre square test trench representing about 10% percent of a new build footprint.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Badger]

This would all depend on depth of deposits and the final building foundation depths.. a deal could be struck whereby preservation in situ would both ensure the surface was undamaged (i know) and also that the developer was not presented with a whopping bill to excavate the archaeology. In PPG16 and NPPG5 we have the problem where the excavation of archaeology is not the goal, it is the mitigation of any archaeological deposits to minimise damage... which may require the developer to alter buidling plan - This can be cheaper than say the cost of excavating a Bronze Age site and all the additional post ex costs...

[1man1desk]

On the first part of this game (Level 1?):

The curator is basically to blame, having issued an inadequate brief. If the initial brief is weak, the contractor can write an inadequate project design that fully complies with the brief - and the curator will have no legal or other basis for insisting on something better.
However, whatever the quality of the project design, the contractor is to blame if they don't actually do what it says in either the brief or the project design. The curator is also to blame if they don't enforce it.

On part 2 of the game (Level 2?):

Part one appeared to imply that the work was a mitigtion excavation in response to a planning condition. Under those circumstances, the curator can't do anything other than try to persuade the developer to do more work or change his design, purely on the basis of goodwill.
If it is a pre-planning permission evaluation, as implied in Part 2, then the curator has a lot of leeway to condition the work and demand an appropriate WSI.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished