20th August 2011, 12:13 PM
I've seen some DBAs/WSIs and the like from other consultants that have suspiciously down-played the archaeology likely to be present and the mitigation required....this extends to a DBA on a major (as in very, very big) prehistoric monument of national importance (although for some reason unscheduled) where the recommendation was to 'cut one good section across it' [I can back that one up with a hard copy of the DBA]...and the same consultant seems to have an amazing track-record of not finding anything (repeatedly) during evaluations and watching briefs in several towns where whenever we take the tarmac off there's usually more stuff than we (and indeed other units operating in the same are) know what to do with....but then maybe they're cheap? ....have talked to loads of people who've noticed the same trend... 
Curators don't have time to read and check everything that comes across their desks, so I'd imagine that any sufficiently long-winded and glossy-looking DBA is quite likely to get through as long as it looks plausible.... :face-thinks:
Curators don't have time to read and check everything that comes across their desks, so I'd imagine that any sufficiently long-winded and glossy-looking DBA is quite likely to get through as long as it looks plausible.... :face-thinks: