+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Interesting precedent? (/showthread.php?tid=2161)
Interesting precedent? - mercenary - 10th March 2006
We are getting into one of my pet hates here, the watching brief. Pointless negative ones that are wasting developers money we try to curtail with the permission of the curator. It's the other type that seems to be at issue here (and the type I often get stuck with). Sites worthy of excavation, but done by watching brief, tend to require much more post ex than either the curator or contractor had in mind. What happens then? Perhaps a new tender process for the PX?
Interesting precedent? - sniper - 10th March 2006
not a watching brief, but I know of two sites, both with skeletons, where the excavation was paid for, but then the developer wouldn't or couldn't find the money for post-excavation work beyond assessment, even though recommendations were made that the material should be studied further. The skeletons were then reburied, rendering them unstudiable by anyone at all. Almost makes you wonder what was the point in paying all that money to have them excavated by archaeologists if you are then not going to pay for any analysis work. Might as well have been done with a JCB...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Interesting precedent? - monitor lizard - 10th March 2006
But then you run the real risk of a different contractor picking up the post-ex, which is a nightmare.
Interesting precedent? - sniper - 10th March 2006
oh, I didn't mean an archaeological unit going in with a machine, but commercial cemetery clearance, which happens all the time, not necessarily where it should...certainly quicker than archaeological excavation, if nothing else. I just think there tends to be a misheld belief among some that excavation is the beginning and the end of it and that we don't actually need to do anything once the excavation has ended. I still occasionally get asked "what happens to all these bodies when they've been dug up? Do they get reburied straight away?" Excavation, and then assessment, and analysis are only the start of the research process for skeletons, as for anything else, and developers should be made very aware of this...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Interesting precedent? - troll - 10th March 2006
Developer "heritage" Insurance.Developer pays yearly premiums based upon the potential within their catchment areas,recent building record etc.
All developers required by law to carry this insurance.Archaeology gets carried out properly-post ex makes us proud.Policy also contributes to a nationwide fund for appropriate long-term storage facilities.Thanks santa.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Interesting precedent? - sniper - 10th March 2006
sounds good. If they are going to disturb the stuff to make their profits, they should pay for it to be looked at properly, and stored appropriately...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Interesting precedent? - mercenary - 10th March 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by monitor lizard
But then you run the real risk of a different contractor picking up the post-ex, which is a nightmare.
I'm sure, but then at least the post ex would be funded, and the developer made to realize that it HAD to be done.
Interesting precedent? - mercenary - 10th March 2006
Quote:quote:even though recommendations were made that the material should be studied further.
That brings up something else I've noticed in SMR/HER's lately recommendations for further specialist analysis that go absolutely nowhere. Who are these recommendations for if no-one is going to pay for them, or more to the point insist that they are done?
Interesting precedent? - sniper - 10th March 2006
I do sometimes wonder about that...does all recommended work have to be carried out before a planning condition is met, or can they get away with the bare minimum of an assessment? Have to admit I am a little rusty on me old guidelines, will have to get out the ones on bodies to see what it says...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Interesting precedent? - mercenary - 10th March 2006
I don't know either, but there are a lot of reports in the SMR/HER where recommendations to do further specialist work were completely ignored.