6th December 2010, 11:59 AM
Quote: the majority of clients (developers) couldn't give a monkeys about the 'that's interesting' that you allude to BAJR, although that aspect would be of concern to a curator trying to weigh up significance in terms of PPS5.
I have found different. I have to say, based on the including this element, and taking the time to talk to them as well. A luxury that pays off, as they are paying for it- and a) want the bleedin condition signed off, and b) often do have an interest... sometimes not, sometimes yes.
It does come back to the point of archaeology... if people are willing to admit it is not really archaeology per ce... that it is temporal contamination, and a development control archaeologist is really just signing off the acceptable removal of said contamination according to a set list of criteria (IfA Guidelines, MAP2 etc) with no more interest but with similar care than if they were in charge of the distribution of gritter lorries on a council road network and this side of 'archaeology' has only some cross over into archaeology which the public know, enjoy and support.
It is also perfectly easy to separate within the report, the required sections for the Curator and the additional discussion and background that can be of great interest to the client. (as it happens, my last developer client has ordered further copies of the report in order to give them to the new house owners. - Why.... because it was interesting... gasp... able to meet the requirements of the curatorial dept. and interest the client. - so it is possible)
You are quite right though about the balance... usually though it is the bare minimum to be honest... time is money... minimum = maximum profit!