28th July 2014, 01:11 PM
Yep......its an odd situation.
There is often a thin thread holding the argument in place that the archaeology needs to be dug, recorded, archived and published to agreed standards. A thread that can be cut at any time by a whole host of 'decision makers'.
A thin thread 'protecting' the nations cultural heritage, a rare and rapidly declining resource.
I often find few on a site truly understand what thin ice a supervisor/PO/manager is on. One wrong word and the archaeology gets destroyed.
I once heard a story about a meeting between a client, the archaeological manager and county archaeologist about an upstanding Bronze Age burial monument in the way of a linear scheme. (old history now - the details have been adjusted to protect the innocent, but the jist is the same).
The client wanted the archaeological team off site. The archaeologists wanted to do a proper job (as the client wouldn't divert the scheme around the monument). The county archaeologist said 'well why not just machine half of the monument away and record the section. Job done.'
How the hell is that ok!?
And of course it was the poor old archaeological company/manager that got all the stick, even though they (somehow) managed to do more than the county suggested.
Some people think that archaeological managers (PO/SPO etc) have some kind of magic wand that can make any client step into line....it is rather the opposite.
Another old story (details adjusted) from another linear scheme illustrates what can happen if the PO/SPO/manager pushes too hard. A graveyard is discovered, work starts in earnest. A wrong word in the wrong ear and the team finds themselves literally thrown off site. The client has decided to tunnel their pipe under the graveyard so as to 'preserve it insitu' and have agreement from the county. The tunneling results in the ground being thrust upwards damaging the archaeology. But oh well, we had agreement to do this...county seems to back down. Client pulls any funding for post-ex as they are permitted development.
There is often a thin thread holding the argument in place that the archaeology needs to be dug, recorded, archived and published to agreed standards. A thread that can be cut at any time by a whole host of 'decision makers'.
A thin thread 'protecting' the nations cultural heritage, a rare and rapidly declining resource.
I often find few on a site truly understand what thin ice a supervisor/PO/manager is on. One wrong word and the archaeology gets destroyed.
I once heard a story about a meeting between a client, the archaeological manager and county archaeologist about an upstanding Bronze Age burial monument in the way of a linear scheme. (old history now - the details have been adjusted to protect the innocent, but the jist is the same).
The client wanted the archaeological team off site. The archaeologists wanted to do a proper job (as the client wouldn't divert the scheme around the monument). The county archaeologist said 'well why not just machine half of the monument away and record the section. Job done.'
How the hell is that ok!?
And of course it was the poor old archaeological company/manager that got all the stick, even though they (somehow) managed to do more than the county suggested.
Some people think that archaeological managers (PO/SPO etc) have some kind of magic wand that can make any client step into line....it is rather the opposite.
Another old story (details adjusted) from another linear scheme illustrates what can happen if the PO/SPO/manager pushes too hard. A graveyard is discovered, work starts in earnest. A wrong word in the wrong ear and the team finds themselves literally thrown off site. The client has decided to tunnel their pipe under the graveyard so as to 'preserve it insitu' and have agreement from the county. The tunneling results in the ground being thrust upwards damaging the archaeology. But oh well, we had agreement to do this...county seems to back down. Client pulls any funding for post-ex as they are permitted development.