14th June 2005, 11:02 PM
I do accept at least some of your views guys however-in this instance, I was confronted with a stark choice. Either, I mattocked through at least 9 Roman floor surfaces and intermittant silts just to see what lay beneath, or, I leave the archaeology for future endeavours. I had five days left. Once again, the archaeology was a victim of massive underestimation during the assessment stage. Whilst I also readily accept that pres in situ can mean many things to many people, I would argue that this potential eventuality could be written into the project design and associated PAMs. Rather than allowing developers a free hand with how they interpret "pres in situ", perhaps adequate and more importantly, agreed standards and guidence should be drafted.Infidel- agreed, professional archaeologists would far outshine academics armed with unqualified undergrads in the field but, we can be as professional and competent as we like-the ridiculous and offensive constraints placed upon us in a commercial environment will nearly always screw the archaeology. I agree with you, Thornborough may have to be excavated some time in the future but, not now, not under the farcical, obnoxious, degrading, hopelessly inadequate "guidence" that consultants are so fond of defending. Archaeologists should discuss the needs of the archaeology at Thornborough.When agreement is reached, Tarmac should then be told of their obligations. This process has no place within a flimsy planning framework where commercial and political interests have a nasty habit of denying the public the justice their heritage deserves.