+- 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: Research be seen as integral to development excavation. (/showthread.php?tid=3568)
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - vulpes - 6th December 2010
Quote:and a development control archaeologist is really just signing off the acceptable removal of said contamination according to a set list of criteria (IfA Guidelines, MAP2 etc) with no more interest but with similar care than if they were in charge of the distribution of gritter lorries on a council road network
I don't know any council or development control archaeologists who take that attitude. I certainly don't. But I am accepting of working within a framework. There are other ways and means of getting dicoveries across to the public than rethinking grey lit after all.
In your example I'd have to ask why, if that was the case, you're sending grey lit to the new house owners and were not required to produce a specific popular report?
As for your comments about balance. I disagree. I see more well written stuff than not. I think the sector whether the 'big boys' or smaller local concerns deserves more credit really. Cue Dino, for more axe grinding about super units putting smaller units out of business with their ruthless efficiency and quality product. :face-stir:
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - gwyl - 6th December 2010
vulpes Wrote:In your example I'd have to ask why, if that was the case, you're sending grey lit to the new house owners and were not required to produce a specific popular report?one thing i never understood when the HIPs were operating why archaeological work was not included in the paperwork.
however on another topic, temporal contamination is the only way of getting across to some clients why it is in the first place that they need to have this work done; likening archaeology to bats, newts, asbestos, and ground pollutants and they are like puppies having their tummies rubbed - but talk heritage, knowledge and understanding of the past and its effects on the present and you're looking to start a fight; what i do find somewhat amusing, in my own experience, is that the clients who are most guilty of needing that sort treatment invariably live in listed buildings, clearly are not short of a couple of quid, and will always cause the most grief re: time or numbers on site, or payment, or origin of site-archaeologist and the sort of things that really do not enamour one to one's client
by the by, i don't think i have had the pleasure of a box-ticking council official as a monitoring curator; when i have had run-ins i have generally found them to be reasonable human beings in person, even if the preceding phone-call had been a bit less than encouraging
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - Dinosaur - 6th December 2010
Vulpes - when have I ever mentioned 'quality product' in that context? - can think of one site I did where one of the 'super units' had previously done the trial trenching and it was b***** awful.....when area-stripping straight onto clean natural gravel, the previous evaluation shouldn't be showing itself as a series of rectangular areas still containing a foot of soil - over-machining, anyone? - wouldn't say their report was anything special either and parts of the archive were missing..... however, I'm sure this was just a brief glitch in an otherwise smoothly-oiled, technically perfect and academically peerless machine :face-stir:
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - vulpes - 6th December 2010
off he goes....
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - BAJR - 6th December 2010
Perhaps you should read this...
Further to your email below, Professor Carver has asked me to get in touch regarding the open access Editorial from our latest issue (Volume 84, issue 326, December 2010).
The Editorial is now available on open access at http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/084/0933/ant0840933.pdf
[URL="http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/084/0933/ant0840933.pdf"]
[/URL]
Why was I not required to produce a specific popular report? Have you ever required this on a small building archaeology project? I would just tell you to F off and nowhere in your minimum requirements would you be able to force it, unless I had agreed at teh start, which would be highly unlikely. It will also be the subject of a public lecture and an Art project... so more than one way to involve the public, and make the client feel they got a service, not just a box ticked.
Working in a framework is good.. it provides consistency... but here is a thing... show the standard guidelines for Development Control decisions? :0 To me, the ones who step outside the Framework, who push the limits and the possibilities are to be praised most. LEts be honest, its a mixed bag, and one report could pass through without a glitch in one county, but would be rejected in another. It s tough job... and most I know do a damn fine job.. within their Framework
Without being too partisan here... Vulpes - are you saying you have never heard of overstrip? of targeted test trenches in locations designed to minimise archaeology found? of missing plans? of redrawn plans? of lost archives? etc... We brought it on ourselves.. and must all bear responsibility for deftly stabbing ourselves repeatedly in our own backs. (Not easy!)
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - vulpes - 7th December 2010
BAJR without the context you've just given, there was no way of knowing whether your statement was particularly pertinent or not. I've not read the rest of your post and don't intend to. Didn't get past the F-off bit... Remember the AUP. It does apply to all I thought. :face-approve:
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - BAJR - 7th December 2010
Flip off
At least it was not Like Radio 4 :ISeriously though, it was nice that you don't intend to read the rest of my post ( I bet you did)
Don't get in a fankle... it is clear you don't have any issues. Which is good. And archaeology in the commercial sector is a shining light. WE need to pull back a bit and work out what is the matter, because clearly something is wrong. I am unsure if you feel the system is fine the way it is? IF not, then what constructive ways would you see for it to be better, within the new PPS framework?
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - vulpes - 7th December 2010
see above. You read my posts and I'll read yours. The system is never 'fine'. Like ScARF it evolves, hopely into something better.
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - BAJR - 7th December 2010
Given that we have established that things are never fine, how would you see it evolve into something better? ScARF is designed to evolve, while other regional frameworks, I was under the impression were static documents until they were revised. I would suggest one way is at the next time (if there is a next time) that they adopt a similar principal. Do you are anyone else have constructive methods of 'evolving'.
Research be seen as integral to development excavation. - GnomeKing - 7th December 2010
"are you saying you have never heard of overstrip? of targeted test trenches in locations designed to minimise archaeology found? of missing plans? of redrawn plans? of lost archives"
I have many examples...(mourns abortion of Secret Bajr Informer Network)
some people and organisations NEED a backstab, or at least a kick up the arse, lest they continue to shaft the archaeology...(and keep better archaeologists out of work)