25th June 2008, 02:50 PM
tmsarch wrote
Hello tmsarch,
I take it that some areas of the route which were assumed as historically documented and geologically proven to be made-ground were in fact not. But for financial reasons the opportunity to observe areas that might not have been made-ground were missed and so too was the evidence of activities prior to the dumping of the overburden.
I am puzzled as to why other resources could be better spent when this is a watching brief and I would have hoped was contractually different to other archaeological works, as is commonly the case.
Surely this is a case of someone being seen to save a matter of pennies for their client rather than being archaeologically prudent.
In response to Windbag's comments about watching brief's on former open cast sites, and to anyone who cares to comment about the boring aspects of watching brief's, its our job and its what we get paid for. It makes looking and finding archaeology a damn bit more exciting than sleeping in a landrover.
Quote:quote:No the material was not evenly spread, but the tolerances were such that the decision could be taken not to monitor a significant portion of the route and that archaeological resources could be better spent. This was a decision which was subject to a lot of discussion and analysis, but I feel the correct one was reached in the end. Yes the scheme was monitored, but not a blanket watching brief along the whole route
Hello tmsarch,
I take it that some areas of the route which were assumed as historically documented and geologically proven to be made-ground were in fact not. But for financial reasons the opportunity to observe areas that might not have been made-ground were missed and so too was the evidence of activities prior to the dumping of the overburden.
I am puzzled as to why other resources could be better spent when this is a watching brief and I would have hoped was contractually different to other archaeological works, as is commonly the case.
Surely this is a case of someone being seen to save a matter of pennies for their client rather than being archaeologically prudent.
In response to Windbag's comments about watching brief's on former open cast sites, and to anyone who cares to comment about the boring aspects of watching brief's, its our job and its what we get paid for. It makes looking and finding archaeology a damn bit more exciting than sleeping in a landrover.