25th February 2007, 01:42 PM
âoption. I do not like to stifle debate. but this individual has publicly stated they would have a quiet word with the client and suggest that even if they FEEL there might be archaeology on the site they would advise the client (potential) that they keep quiet just in case the overworked understaffed and underresourced DC archaeologist misses the potential for that site...â
you putting words in my mouth- where did I say there was archaeology on the site
I think that I have consistently argued that I want to do an evaluation trench before I Feel that there might be archaeology in a location. I see evaluation by trench as the only archaeological method. I have argued that evaluation trenches were considered in ppg16 to be inexpensive. I think that this inexpensiveness is in relation to the archaeology rather than the cost of the development. I think that there is a pervading insistence that relates costs to the development. We have the situation throughout curatorial practice that where there is lack of evidence that archaeological conditions (evaluations) are not put on- on the grounds that they cannot be justified, the exception and only sometimes is for very large developments and then in a very consultationary way. We have claims on this thread that you can do less evaluation and find more archaeology. I dont know how. In as much that you have been wound up by a discussion about dbas. In my experience all the sites that I have excavated or been on which were excavated had dbas and it was because it was obvious, in the majority of situations, that there would be an excavation. I dont have much experience about dbas that did not go to excavation. Our friend in Scotland says he asks for dbas because he is overworked and understaffed?
Now it seems to me that we have the situation where you are saying to me that every time a potential client comes to me I insist that they pay me to undertake a dba presumably as a dba is the way to inform the overworked understaffed curator who I want to hear say evaluate. I cant help but feel that I would be exploiting the clients-possibly the curators as well?. I presume that the curators are over worked because they are doing a lot of considering and worrying and staring at archive wondering and umming and pontificating when a predetermination evaluation should be the automatic expectation. should I try and get a client to undertake a predetermination evaluation without a curatorial request...what happens when curator points out that my trenches were unnecessary, what happens when the client wants the information to be confidential. Will I get kicked by the preservation in situ mob. Evaluations need curatorial insistence and pre- consent
I have tried to point out that evaluations are the best route for better employment at the digger level. I think more evaluations will lead to more excavations and cheaper and more efficiently run with a more consistent experienced staff, particularly at a local level. I would rather have an evaluation than a dba to cost an excavation. I want to replace all watching briefs with evaluations. I think that watching briefs should only be imposed when the evidence of evaluations is not conclusive. I feel that this evaluation level of digger activity is currently occupied by the âconceptâ of consultation (such as the very situation that I have outlined in client relations to which you have taken offence but are you upset because diggers have lost out or because you are in some cosy curatorial/archaeological mutual appreciation society). I think that most of the interpretations of peepeeG on bajr water down evaluation and as a result excavation to the point that it is barely visible or significant in what the vast majority of âarchaeologistsâ do. I think that evaluation should be the bread and butter of the digging world. Not something that is only done before the obvious excavation when in all likelihood it will be argued that evaluation is not worth doing because the area is going to be opened up anyway- and it will make a mess as has also been argued...
âHow many sites have you knowingly allowed to be developed without any archaeological works? How many sites that should have had excavation but you kept quiet and just let them get bulldozed?â none -I get paid to watch them be bulldozed it just that I not really sure that watching bulldozers is archaeology. You end up with the niggling feeling that you have been turned into the systems hamster. More a question for curators I think
around my area the vast majority of planning approvals donât get any form of condition and they are dominated by watching briefs. I dont know of a single digger who lives within forty kilometres an area of approximately 2500 square km house prices have risen four fold in under ten years-the development boom is full on-how many evaluations per week does it require to permanently employ a single digger at the newly negotiated rates
There are plenty of other aspects of evaluations that need working out one of which is curators trying to turn evaluations into mini excavations....and then thereâs over egged excavations
Troll diggers are bloody lucky to end up on any dig- dba or no dba âwith a permanent pension able position flying pigs mate
Off to work on my client dba script âoh dear duckyâ âI cant really sayâ âI need to do you a dba.â Kerching
you putting words in my mouth- where did I say there was archaeology on the site
I think that I have consistently argued that I want to do an evaluation trench before I Feel that there might be archaeology in a location. I see evaluation by trench as the only archaeological method. I have argued that evaluation trenches were considered in ppg16 to be inexpensive. I think that this inexpensiveness is in relation to the archaeology rather than the cost of the development. I think that there is a pervading insistence that relates costs to the development. We have the situation throughout curatorial practice that where there is lack of evidence that archaeological conditions (evaluations) are not put on- on the grounds that they cannot be justified, the exception and only sometimes is for very large developments and then in a very consultationary way. We have claims on this thread that you can do less evaluation and find more archaeology. I dont know how. In as much that you have been wound up by a discussion about dbas. In my experience all the sites that I have excavated or been on which were excavated had dbas and it was because it was obvious, in the majority of situations, that there would be an excavation. I dont have much experience about dbas that did not go to excavation. Our friend in Scotland says he asks for dbas because he is overworked and understaffed?
Now it seems to me that we have the situation where you are saying to me that every time a potential client comes to me I insist that they pay me to undertake a dba presumably as a dba is the way to inform the overworked understaffed curator who I want to hear say evaluate. I cant help but feel that I would be exploiting the clients-possibly the curators as well?. I presume that the curators are over worked because they are doing a lot of considering and worrying and staring at archive wondering and umming and pontificating when a predetermination evaluation should be the automatic expectation. should I try and get a client to undertake a predetermination evaluation without a curatorial request...what happens when curator points out that my trenches were unnecessary, what happens when the client wants the information to be confidential. Will I get kicked by the preservation in situ mob. Evaluations need curatorial insistence and pre- consent
I have tried to point out that evaluations are the best route for better employment at the digger level. I think more evaluations will lead to more excavations and cheaper and more efficiently run with a more consistent experienced staff, particularly at a local level. I would rather have an evaluation than a dba to cost an excavation. I want to replace all watching briefs with evaluations. I think that watching briefs should only be imposed when the evidence of evaluations is not conclusive. I feel that this evaluation level of digger activity is currently occupied by the âconceptâ of consultation (such as the very situation that I have outlined in client relations to which you have taken offence but are you upset because diggers have lost out or because you are in some cosy curatorial/archaeological mutual appreciation society). I think that most of the interpretations of peepeeG on bajr water down evaluation and as a result excavation to the point that it is barely visible or significant in what the vast majority of âarchaeologistsâ do. I think that evaluation should be the bread and butter of the digging world. Not something that is only done before the obvious excavation when in all likelihood it will be argued that evaluation is not worth doing because the area is going to be opened up anyway- and it will make a mess as has also been argued...
âHow many sites have you knowingly allowed to be developed without any archaeological works? How many sites that should have had excavation but you kept quiet and just let them get bulldozed?â none -I get paid to watch them be bulldozed it just that I not really sure that watching bulldozers is archaeology. You end up with the niggling feeling that you have been turned into the systems hamster. More a question for curators I think
around my area the vast majority of planning approvals donât get any form of condition and they are dominated by watching briefs. I dont know of a single digger who lives within forty kilometres an area of approximately 2500 square km house prices have risen four fold in under ten years-the development boom is full on-how many evaluations per week does it require to permanently employ a single digger at the newly negotiated rates
There are plenty of other aspects of evaluations that need working out one of which is curators trying to turn evaluations into mini excavations....and then thereâs over egged excavations
Troll diggers are bloody lucky to end up on any dig- dba or no dba âwith a permanent pension able position flying pigs mate
Off to work on my client dba script âoh dear duckyâ âI cant really sayâ âI need to do you a dba.â Kerching