20th June 2006, 11:56 AM
Thank you for the clarification. Pretty phraseology was not the point, simply a bit more information about what on earth was going on!
I am still not entirely clear as to what happened with the topsoil, but from your description it all sounds somewhat unconventional to say the least. To have staff 'wandering around' digging holes at random suggests an anarchic approach to archaeological investigation.[?]
However I am wondering whether there was previous work which highlighted these 'hot spots' such as a desk-based assessment which used APs, or some form of geophysical survey prior to topsoil stripping? This is obviously the normal procedure. Is it possible that the consultant, curator and unit director (whose conversation you partly overheard) had access to additional data which you did not?
Mineral permissions are usually very tightly policed by LPAs (in some cases much more so than PPG16 work) because of the much greater landscape and environmental impact. It is worth remembering that even in a 'total excavation' situation large parts of a site might well be left unexplored because they contain areas of limited archaeological interest. We all have to make value judgments all the time about the relative worth of different bits archaeology.
I am not disputing your story, but I think we only have part of the picture here.
Your implication is that the consultant, curator and unit director were all in league to somehow subvert normal archaeological procedures. In which case that is a serious allegation. If that is what you genuinely feel then you should report to the BAJR hotline in confidence.
I am still not entirely clear as to what happened with the topsoil, but from your description it all sounds somewhat unconventional to say the least. To have staff 'wandering around' digging holes at random suggests an anarchic approach to archaeological investigation.[?]
However I am wondering whether there was previous work which highlighted these 'hot spots' such as a desk-based assessment which used APs, or some form of geophysical survey prior to topsoil stripping? This is obviously the normal procedure. Is it possible that the consultant, curator and unit director (whose conversation you partly overheard) had access to additional data which you did not?
Mineral permissions are usually very tightly policed by LPAs (in some cases much more so than PPG16 work) because of the much greater landscape and environmental impact. It is worth remembering that even in a 'total excavation' situation large parts of a site might well be left unexplored because they contain areas of limited archaeological interest. We all have to make value judgments all the time about the relative worth of different bits archaeology.
I am not disputing your story, but I think we only have part of the picture here.
Your implication is that the consultant, curator and unit director were all in league to somehow subvert normal archaeological procedures. In which case that is a serious allegation. If that is what you genuinely feel then you should report to the BAJR hotline in confidence.