Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2010
Bit of a campaign being waged about the cessation of a crannog excavation in Co. Fermanagh.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/254450291340252/
Here is a bit of background on it.
http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/...stian.html
By the looks of it, one of the major points is that you can't have preservation in-situ with a wetland site once it has been drained but the engineers do not want to extend the dig. Preservation levels at the site appear to be on a par with Deer Park Farms, Co. Antrim, which would mean it has major significance.
I'm not overly familiar with UK working practices, so I've value some thoughts on the issue.
:face-thinks:
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
We are in the midst of a story on this... will be up tommorrow. The IfA are into this as well.
What worries me is that an archaeologist was sacked for upholding the code of conduct - putting archaeology first.
I will be talking to the IfA the morrow and perhaps the company. but this is a FUBAR!
More time... more resources! BUT it should never have happened!
cheers there!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2011
Depressing stuff. Who's steering the ship here? More than an echo of Wood Quay . . .
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
I am not a member of facebook or Google+ so whats the problem its says that six weeks was considered good enough....
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
you hit the nail on the head there cartoon.
and Unit.. I think that is the crux... who in the name of the seven hells thought 6 weeks was enough?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
25th July 2012, 09:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 25th July 2012, 09:43 PM by Unitof1.)
yes someone thinked six weeks was enough and would you expect that to include those who won the tender. ? Is it that the field muppet was not the person who won the tender. Lots of fun theres a code of conduct interpretation. Is the muppet a tool sorry member of the ifa?
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
From the Facebook campaign...
These are the questions that some of the excavation team could never get answers for:
Questions RE: Cherrymount Crannog
Licence number: AE/10/199
SMR: FER 211: 061
Townland name: Drumclay
1. Why was it decided that it would be acceptable to lay a road through an SMR site?
2. Why was the director employed by an engineering company when this is a prima facie conflict of interest and has never occurred before?
3. Why was the test trench which was excavated in early 2011 only c.05m deep?
4. Why was it claimed that the timber observed in that test trench was a ?construction layer??
5. What does the term ?construction layer? refer to given that a crannog is entirely man made?
6. Who was it that decided and why was it decided that it would be sufficient to excavate the habitation layers and merely measure the ?construction layer??
7. Why was the site left exposed for a year and a half before excavation began?
8. Why was the excavation not started sooner?
9. On who?s authority and on what basis was it decided that 4-6 weeks would be sufficient to excavate a crannog?
10. Why and how and by whom were two thirds of the crannog demolished before excavation began?
11. Why were those responsible not charged with the destruction of a national monument?
12. Why was it claimed by the director that the new limits of the site were the original limits?
13. Why was there no excavation methodology or strategy in place when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
14. Why were no timber sheets available to the crew when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
15. Why was there no written record of photographs taken when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
16. Why was there no site camera when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
17. Why was there no context register when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
18. Why was there no sample register when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
19. Why were the crew not allowed to fill in context sheets when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
20. Why was there no level provided on the site for the first two weeks when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
21. Why were no adequate storage facilities provided when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
22. Why were specialists and experts not invited to visit the site when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
23. Why was it decided by the director that only three environmental samples would be taken when this was totally insufficient?
24. Why was almost every layer exposed by the crew claimed to be a ?construction layer? by the director when this was patently not true?
25. Why was there no investigation when a female employee quit because she alleged she was being bullied?
26. Why was an employee fired because that employee sent photographs to a personal blog?
27. Why was a monolith not taken when this is a generally accepted practice in the profession?
28. Why was a supervisor denied access to the site when she had volunteered to come in at her own expense to take a monolith and deliver it to Queens University Belfast?
29. Why was the excavation concluded even though the excavation had not reached the foundation level?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
To my mind there are two related bleats here that happen with all public development schemes
The first is that the "landowner" is also the developer and also the curator - but presumably the ownership of the land was gained for the scheme under legistration which has the potential threat of compulsary purchase? What I have always argued is that the "original" landowner should be compensated for the loss of their archaeology or if you like for having preserved the archaeology when it was in their possesion....and one way to assertaine this value is to agree the cost of production...eg the the cost of excavation and conservation. You might find then that the curator would have to be seen to be seperate from the developer and that everybody so far has been doing archaeology for half price..
the second is who owns this archaeology and we may as well chuck copyright into that as well. It appears that someone could be dismissed from this digging team due to the dissemination of images. You will find that the ifa is total wank on who owns the record and has never once protected the copyright of the archaeologist. They will do this by claiming that the person is not "the" archaeologist that used to be mentioned in their codes but who are being replaced raos or other convienient contrivances.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Think No.26, dependent on what the photos were of and what was being said in the blog, might get you disciplined in most jobs? Probably an infringement of client confidentiality and highly unprofessional if nothing else. We've certainly got a company policy on that (although since I've got friends in the real world I seem to have binned it). Otherwise they all sound like questions that need to be answered
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/...rn-ireland
more on the story - and the photographs ---
I think the question of Client confidentiality is one of ethics...
Do you sit back and allow it to happen. - not enough time to dig a site?
### have just heard an off the record comment that there may be more time available.
