20th August 2011, 03:01 PM
Dinosaur Wrote: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....
You're quite right, curators don't have time to check everything - although I certainly try to check as much as possible. We're not all stupid enough to be fooled by glossy covers though- give us some credit! You are quite right about the quality of DBAs - they are often exceptionally poor and Dino I agree that certain large consultancy firms are (in my experience) often the worst. This means that if there is a report I'm going to make sure I read with a fine tooth-pick, its the one by the firm which has a bad track record at producing such padded out off the shelf reports - glossy cover or no glossy cover. If a report comes in from a unit which I know, has good local knowledge and a good track record of producing quality reports then this might be the one I skim quickly. There are good firms out there who know their eggs, and more often than not their reports are the ones I trust enough to put to one side and perhaps not check in such detail.
The standard of DBAs is something that is becoming increasingly frustrating. What desk-based assessments need to do is assess - this seems to be forgotten - what I don't want is the HER data sent back to me, padded out with borehole info (that's not actually assessed in the report) with a conclusion that the site is either urban (so the archaeology's been trashed by past development) or rural (so the archaeology's been trashed by past ploughing). I've got a copy of the HER in front of me, one that I can manipulate in GIS and overlay against the topography, geology, historic maps, etc. Why send a padded out print-out of the HER data back to me - I can do less with that than I can in five minutes with GIS open sat at my desk.
What I want to know is what the HER data can tell you about the site's potential - I don't want to know about the stuff we already know about, what I want is for this data to be used to predict and model the archaeological potential of the development site. What type of archaeology might we find, what state of preservation might it be in, at what depth might it be buried at? I want DBA's to consider the known archaeology against the topography and geology to extrapolate what might be present on the site in question. I want to know what type of archaeology might be present and I want the DBA to provide an assessment of the significance of such archaeology. I want the DBA to consider what the development proposals will mean for the archaeology and provide a robust impact assessment. I want the desk-based assessment to consider what evaluation/mitigation techniques might be appropriate and to consider if there are going to be any limitations that might impact on such works (access issues, current land-use, overhead power-lines, the site's just been cropped, etc, etc). I want the desk-based assessment to consider if there are any positive benefits that might arise from the development - for example are there any opportunities to enhance, present and interpret the site's heritage?
Sorry - desk-based assessment rant over, but this is one area where I think standards really do need to be improved. As for curators, we're easily bashed (and often are on this forum), but please give us some credit - we're not all incapable of seeing past a glossy cover
