Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Ah it's the old machining by the developer to save money trick which invariably results in no visible archaeological features. Therefore more money saved. An old con that in my experience curators often collude in. Very similar to watching briefs where the method of overburden removal is not specified, the bulldozers or draglines churn up and obscure the potential features and it goes down as a negative site in the SMR.
No doubt all parties except the conscientious archs like yourself defend it by saying that the site was properly stripped and there was nothing there. You won't have made yourself popular by proving them wrong by actually cleaning an area to demonstrate what was being missed by their disgraceful methodology. I've been in that position too many times myself, and I'm not sure exactly how they explain away an island of complex archaeology exactly matching my grid square, with features stopping at the edges.
I don't suppose the site plan is accessable, which should be revealing?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Mornin Merc.Will you marry me?
Put far more succinctly than my initial groan sir thankyou.Have no idea ref the site plan...will look into it and get back to you.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:The methodology imposed by the consultant had clearly been adopted "on the hoof".A couple of us got all rebellious and ignored the "no further cleaning-just dig it" rule and cleaned a couple of areas to make a point.Lo and behold-verily-lots of features turned up and were completely at variance with the spurious plans we were asked to draw through said overburden.My main point here is not to vilify the unit in question.I found them to be very professional.
For a start, no consultant can 'impose' a methodology - they can propose one, but if the curator doesn't like it they can reject it.
Having said that, the methodology described does sound very dodgy. Unless there is something we don't know, I have never heard of this approach before, and I would oppose it. I would encourage you to lodge a complaint to the IFA and to complain directly to the curator concerned. Please, however, make sure you describe the work carefully and can refer to site records or other evidence.
I don't know why you don't want to vilify the unit. They are the ones actually applying the methodology, and if they think it is inadequate or unethical it is their responsibility to refuse. By quietly going along with it they endorse it. In practice, the method is likely to have been influenced by their very cheap tender.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Not the case here sir- the curator in question is well known and not a field archaeologist.The consultant quite literally dictated terms and the curator took them on board.They even turned up in the same car.What chance has a small unit got in the face of such? What gives you the idea that a "very cheap tender" has any bearing on this issue?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Troll
What you are describing sounds to be contrary to good practice, and I hope that this is a rare and unusual occurrence. Pursue it all the way through the appropriate channels - have you checked if the consultant is a member of IFA, or if the unit is RAO ?
Beamo
PS. Actually, as a consultant I found all of this very interesting as I am always on the lookout for ways to reduce clients' costs whilst not increasing risk (only kidding - honest).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
...a truer word spoken in jest........
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Quote:quote:and I hope that this is a rare and unusual occurrence.
Not in my experience. Machining by the developer is usually substandard, whether under archaeological supervision or not. It should be made very clear by the consultant, curator and contractor, that if it is not done well then it will have to be done by hand, with all the extra costs that would entail. Come to think of it most sites should be cleaned by hand anyway. A charitable explanation here may be that none of these parties had the balls to tell the developer to re-do it. But that doesn't account for a refusal to let the archs hand clean it. Looks like a conscious policy to minimize the archaeology found.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Can I remind everybody of the AUP. The full facts of the case are not known at present.
In particular we dont know the curator and consultants reasoning for this course of action. At present the situation could be down to industry standard communication ie very little.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Dr Pete,
I'd be extremely interested if you can imagine a hypothetical scenario to explain this case, which doesn't reflect badly on all parties except the lowly archs. Certainly not lack of communication. (The industry standard excuse when caught doing naughty things)
I for one am sick to death of archaeologists (contractors, curators and consultants) who don't actually look for archaeological features. If you don't "look" (AKA cleaning) you rarely find. It's also sickening how the amount of "looking" always reflects the resources for the job.
I feel very strongly that archs of any sort who don't want to find features so that they can have an easy life, maximize their profit, or please a developer, should just get out of the profession. It is far far too easy to rig the methodology so that nothing is found, but professionally dishonest and probably unethical. Grrrr.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
A: I am just off to Avebury and B: I have not said I can imagine a hypothetical scenario to explain this case, which doesn't reflect badly on all parties except the lowly archs.
I see David is on line so I will leave things to him...
Peter Wardle
