20th June 2006, 06:26 PM
Dr Pete,
I'd be extremely interested if you can imagine a hypothetical scenario to explain this case, which doesn't reflect badly on all parties except the lowly archs. Certainly not lack of communication. (The industry standard excuse when caught doing naughty things)
I for one am sick to death of archaeologists (contractors, curators and consultants) who don't actually look for archaeological features. If you don't "look" (AKA cleaning) you rarely find. It's also sickening how the amount of "looking" always reflects the resources for the job.
I feel very strongly that archs of any sort who don't want to find features so that they can have an easy life, maximize their profit, or please a developer, should just get out of the profession. It is far far too easy to rig the methodology so that nothing is found, but professionally dishonest and probably unethical. Grrrr.
I'd be extremely interested if you can imagine a hypothetical scenario to explain this case, which doesn't reflect badly on all parties except the lowly archs. Certainly not lack of communication. (The industry standard excuse when caught doing naughty things)
I for one am sick to death of archaeologists (contractors, curators and consultants) who don't actually look for archaeological features. If you don't "look" (AKA cleaning) you rarely find. It's also sickening how the amount of "looking" always reflects the resources for the job.
I feel very strongly that archs of any sort who don't want to find features so that they can have an easy life, maximize their profit, or please a developer, should just get out of the profession. It is far far too easy to rig the methodology so that nothing is found, but professionally dishonest and probably unethical. Grrrr.