14th February 2007, 04:45 PM
Consultants and no evaluation trenches- made their money again that day and the diggers didnt.....
I am intrigued by the ownership issues that sites like this seem to ignore. Initially Troll mentioned a Farmer- now presumably a landowner who relinquished ownership under threat of compulsory purchase and was presumably compensated in some proportion to the agricultural value of the land. I would wager that the presence of a barrow did not come into the negotiations (nobody wants to pay do they) and possibly the landowner might have looked at it as getting rid of a liability. I bet not a single archaeologist gave them a second thought.
We now are mulling over the awfulness of it all and the how we would dig it and what did eh and the counties do about the barrow and what actually happened is that it got a cheap bit of a mattocking which is what I would suggest the landowners, if they give a monkies, would have noticed and said whats the big deal about any barrow which has added absolutely no extra value to their compensation and in fact would have been a liability to any development of theirs. Plough on
Presumably the archaeologists and the consultants were sycophants of the council and their numerous agents and sub contractors. I would suggest they are all complicit in ripping off the landowner of an extremely rare and valuable asset
Now the barrow when it was mattocked presumably belonged to the council.-US but I imagine that there were a few confidentiality relationships going on amongst the contractors- so there was no appealing to the plebs, I imagine that the consultants put that down in the first clause on any contract, âprobably no open days (something on the pen ultimate day- any school parties, the press? Oh health and safety- dont want the detectorists about do we). So Troll canât tell us too much can he? besides we are not allowed to slag off our own
And it is the same council which imposes TCPA conditions ..,. getting a bit to confused, maybe we should get the IFA in on this-ahhh consultants, curators and county council charity units-
I am intrigued by the ownership issues that sites like this seem to ignore. Initially Troll mentioned a Farmer- now presumably a landowner who relinquished ownership under threat of compulsory purchase and was presumably compensated in some proportion to the agricultural value of the land. I would wager that the presence of a barrow did not come into the negotiations (nobody wants to pay do they) and possibly the landowner might have looked at it as getting rid of a liability. I bet not a single archaeologist gave them a second thought.
We now are mulling over the awfulness of it all and the how we would dig it and what did eh and the counties do about the barrow and what actually happened is that it got a cheap bit of a mattocking which is what I would suggest the landowners, if they give a monkies, would have noticed and said whats the big deal about any barrow which has added absolutely no extra value to their compensation and in fact would have been a liability to any development of theirs. Plough on
Presumably the archaeologists and the consultants were sycophants of the council and their numerous agents and sub contractors. I would suggest they are all complicit in ripping off the landowner of an extremely rare and valuable asset
Now the barrow when it was mattocked presumably belonged to the council.-US but I imagine that there were a few confidentiality relationships going on amongst the contractors- so there was no appealing to the plebs, I imagine that the consultants put that down in the first clause on any contract, âprobably no open days (something on the pen ultimate day- any school parties, the press? Oh health and safety- dont want the detectorists about do we). So Troll canât tell us too much can he? besides we are not allowed to slag off our own
And it is the same council which imposes TCPA conditions ..,. getting a bit to confused, maybe we should get the IFA in on this-ahhh consultants, curators and county council charity units-