2nd November 2005, 03:03 PM
Quote:quote:Is`nt it the case that ppg 16 has opened the door to watered down cut-price hit and run archaeology? Hmmmmm, let me see....big powerful developer....small obliging survivalist arch units....Originally posted by Troll
Quote:quote: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 developerOrignally posted by Archae_logical
Try looking at some published 'rescue' excavations from before PPG16, as I have done while writing up more recent excavations, or talk to people (like me) who worked in rescue archaeology before PPG16. What you will find is that, because the excavations were publicly funded, budgets were much tighter than now, so the excavations were much smaller and usually to a much lower standard. There was also much more selection - many sites just went by the board, with no mitigation at all. And, of course, there was no evaluation, so only sites that were already well-known were even considered.
For all its faults, PPG16 has hugely improved the quality and quantity of archaeological work in the development process. Evaluation (largely a creation of PPG16) means that local authorities have more information before they grant planning permission; developer funding means that they are more willing to impose conditions for mitigation excavation; and the curators are much more powerful than before.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished