16th October 2005, 02:12 AM
(It can't happen now that things have gone on too long but I'd like to see the whole concept of tendered/developer funded archaeology reconsidered)
I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.
Why can't it happen now [?] Nothing is ever set in stone it just needs the will of the people to change it.
Also why is it, in archaeology, guidelines are treated as guidance which can be ignored but in other areas as guidance that show best practice?
A very puzzled non-archaeologist onlooker }
I'd like to see the system changed so the work was done by an independent archaeological company of some kind, under the direction/working for the county mounty but paid for by the developer so that anything of national importance found would be reported immediately to the appropriate person not hidden in paperwork until it was too late to preserve in-situ if necessary. This way no-one could say the information was not given to them in time to follow PPG16 guidelines.
Why can't it happen now [?] Nothing is ever set in stone it just needs the will of the people to change it.
Also why is it, in archaeology, guidelines are treated as guidance which can be ignored but in other areas as guidance that show best practice?
A very puzzled non-archaeologist onlooker }