Theoretical Developer loophole question

[BAJR Host]

true oldgirl... I should have added in areas where there is known archaeology - previously record in earlier investigations

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

true oldgirl... I should have added in areas where there is known archaeology - previously record in earlier investigations

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

I'm also thinking of watching brief on (for example) demolition works feeding into further mitigation designs. I have sites where wb on initial groundworks is informaing not only areas for further eval and excav but also helping to define areas for preservation in situ.

[xx(]

[chert]

In the original scenario, as posted, there appears to have been no condition as yet for a WB etc. Therefore as the developer is contracting the archaeologist outwith the planning process, there would be no need to produce a WSI, or even to inform the Archaeological Officer - in the same way that a local archaeological society would be within their rights to excavate a trench on private farmland.

The only way round this situation I can see would be to have the whole matter covered by caveats and contingency budgets in the formal quote. Make the quote a mini WSI where it is clear the advice of the AO is sought before works requiring the use of the contingency are contemplated.

Better still of course is to persuade the developer it is in their best interest to work with the AO from the moment they contact you. Sometimes a very uphill struggle, but you know it makes sense in the long run!

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
Personally I think the bigger archaeological firms don't like it as they try to hide their profit methods from their field staff.

There can't be many archaeologists (or employees in any business/trade), who haven't worked out that their employer is charging far more for their services than they are paid. Or even that their employer must be charging enough to take on the 'risk' of finding something interesting (or anything at all).

(I have put my tinfoil hardhat on).

quote:
In my area the curators have totally expunged the watching brief term from all of their briefs...

This is more interesting. I have always seen the watching brief as a perfectly legitimate methodology when used in the correct situation: i.e. that despite evaluation, an area of perceived archaeological potential has not produced any evidence. It's a 'last chance' evaluation technique rather than a mitigation measure in itself.

quote:
Has anybody been asked to get rid of the topsoil, apparently you can get ?40 a tonne. I think that it has got quite interesting sideline/ethic possibilities during the credit crunch.

Only if you have some incredibly naive/thick clients. I have yet to meet a developer/builder who is unaware of the value (or do I mean price?) of topsoil. Stopping people stealing the stuff has long been a problem, particularlly on large jobs and there are many tales of them discovering an 'extra' lorry, taking loads away to heaven knows where.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Your lack of archaeological imagination disappoints me Curator

[Unitof1]

quote:Only if you have some incredibly naive/thick clients.

I got into archaeology from being a soil merchant. Believe me every single client I have ever met are a least two species behind thick.

I am interested in your correct use of the watching brief only occurring after an evaluation. A watching brief without an evaluation is an abomination and if requested by a cur is something that can be done with ones eyes closed and for which a report is unnecessary. I would love to know of any examples of watching brief being undertaken after evaluations. Does it not suggest that the evaluations weren’t evaluations?