5th June 2007, 06:37 PM
It certainly does happen, I was involved in winning a post-ex job as we got in with the clients and they were unhappy with the tender from the original contactor. However, i think it is problematic as, especially if the recording is not great, someone coming cold to a load of archive will undoubtedly lead to a different and probably weaker interpretation than if one contrator had seen the the whole thing through.
However, to play devils advocate, in a number of larger companies the on-site recording/interpretation team is often completely split from the report writing team. I would argue that unless good communication is kept up then this structure could add to similar problems?
Finally, theoretically I suppose lots of the pro-reflexsive method systems (e.g. the Framework system discussed recently) would be whole heartedly against this sort of practice (e.g. the partitioning -off of on-site and post-ex interpretation) as it would add another 'circle' of interpretation between the 'trowels edge' and the final report? However, im not convinced that there is ever an absolutely clear line of narrative that can be acheived between context sheet (in whatever form) and final reporting if more than one person is involved in the excavation of a site(unless a GIS map is your final document?). So, perhaps I am actually arguing that even if a site is recorded well the final report is only as good (and as inclusive of others interpretations)as the person who is writing it, and that perhaps we shouldnt get overly hung up about different people writing up sites that they have not dug on?
However, a bigger concern is perhaps that to win the post-ex off the toes of the contractor who dug the site is more likely to end up in a cheaper tender and therefore a rushed job or a financial defecit...
quite happy to be shot down in flames!
G
However, to play devils advocate, in a number of larger companies the on-site recording/interpretation team is often completely split from the report writing team. I would argue that unless good communication is kept up then this structure could add to similar problems?
Finally, theoretically I suppose lots of the pro-reflexsive method systems (e.g. the Framework system discussed recently) would be whole heartedly against this sort of practice (e.g. the partitioning -off of on-site and post-ex interpretation) as it would add another 'circle' of interpretation between the 'trowels edge' and the final report? However, im not convinced that there is ever an absolutely clear line of narrative that can be acheived between context sheet (in whatever form) and final reporting if more than one person is involved in the excavation of a site(unless a GIS map is your final document?). So, perhaps I am actually arguing that even if a site is recorded well the final report is only as good (and as inclusive of others interpretations)as the person who is writing it, and that perhaps we shouldnt get overly hung up about different people writing up sites that they have not dug on?
However, a bigger concern is perhaps that to win the post-ex off the toes of the contractor who dug the site is more likely to end up in a cheaper tender and therefore a rushed job or a financial defecit...
quite happy to be shot down in flames!
G