27th June 2008, 08:00 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sparky
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.
You assume wrong, I said that the material was not evenly spread, that does not mean that it was absent in some areas, just that its thickness varied. Within the section that was not monitored (even with this variation) the horizon where archaeological remains might be encountered was not impacted by the proposals.
Quote:quote:
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.
No not for financial reasons, but because there was not going to be any archaeological impact.
Quote:quote:
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.
True, I was perhaps simplifying things here. It's perhaps a case of 'getting away with a bit more' in other areas. By insisting on a completely unnecessary watching brief on a section of pipeline that blatantly is not going to reveal any archaeology you're simply going to anger the people that are paying for the work. If you take a fair and reasonable approach then your more likely to be able to push those little 'extras' in other areas.
Quote:quote: Surely this is a case of someone being seen to save a matter of pennies for their client rather than being archaeologically prudent.
I take offense to this comment which is both inaccurate and misrepresentative.
Quote:quote: 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.
borings fine, but if the watching brief is pointless then this is a simple waste of time and money.
The original post implied criticism because there were pipelines that weren't subject to a blanket watching brief. What I was trying to get across is that there might be a reason for this. We cannot apply blanket rules without looking at the individual case. There have been and will be schemes where such coverage is not reasonable.
I think 1man1desk's post above is spot on - but I'm sure others will argue otherwise.