20th June 2006, 01:06 PM
Ah it's the old machining by the developer to save money trick which invariably results in no visible archaeological features. Therefore more money saved. An old con that in my experience curators often collude in. Very similar to watching briefs where the method of overburden removal is not specified, the bulldozers or draglines churn up and obscure the potential features and it goes down as a negative site in the SMR.
No doubt all parties except the conscientious archs like yourself defend it by saying that the site was properly stripped and there was nothing there. You won't have made yourself popular by proving them wrong by actually cleaning an area to demonstrate what was being missed by their disgraceful methodology. I've been in that position too many times myself, and I'm not sure exactly how they explain away an island of complex archaeology exactly matching my grid square, with features stopping at the edges.
I don't suppose the site plan is accessable, which should be revealing?
No doubt all parties except the conscientious archs like yourself defend it by saying that the site was properly stripped and there was nothing there. You won't have made yourself popular by proving them wrong by actually cleaning an area to demonstrate what was being missed by their disgraceful methodology. I've been in that position too many times myself, and I'm not sure exactly how they explain away an island of complex archaeology exactly matching my grid square, with features stopping at the edges.
I don't suppose the site plan is accessable, which should be revealing?