9th September 2008, 11:00 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Steven
Hi
All good points, a lack of artefacts does make it difficult to impress groundworkers, particularly if the archaeologists find it dull.
This trend (I'm assuming its "true" rather than a perception) to downgrade the mitigation to watching briefs is very worrying and it may well be that the curators should be specifying that archaeological contractors/consultants must NOT include recommendations in their DBAs. I frequently do this and only accept DBAs with recommendations if I have agreed their inclusion prior to submission of the DBA. This way means the decision about further work is decided either in conjunction, or by somebody with local knowledge (i.e. me!). Hopefully, this means that decisions are based on local significance as well as regional and national, and reflect research priorities/gaps in the area rather than simply a value judgement.
Steven
I'm not sure anyone is in a position to determine whether the situation is true or just perceived, and I would have thought nothing short of a PhD's worth of investigation would be able to answer that one.
The curators I regularly deal with often do ask for recommendations to be excluded from the reports but at the end of the day they are still reliant on the interpretation of the archaeologist(s) on site to provide them with the information they need to make an informed decision. Otherwise they'd have to go out and do all the work themselves. It is probable that the 'problem' isn't as bad as it might be perceived but it's difficult to tell without some nation-wide comparison.
All I know is that the north-west never seems to shout loadly enough about its archaeology, and as a result it largely lays silent in response. Big up yourself, is, I believe, the correct modern vernacular?