30th October 2008, 07:03 PM
Beamo live by the: specifically request that they (sorry pathetic archaeologists taking what they can hoping for more crumbs later) do not make any recommendations, die by the access condition dribble of the curatorsâ¦.
Sounds like the archaeologist want to make recommendations but you want let themâ¦
When you say
There is no way that you are going to convince the client that the 'access condition' carries too much risk, and that an evaluation would be a better strategy in terms of risk management. I am surprised they still need you around.
Unless what kind of client is this dimâ¦and you have got the curator going around posing .I donât think its private client
Sounds like the archaeologist want to make recommendations but you want let themâ¦
When you say
Quote:quote: My response is 1) the location of the site within a walled medieval town, and not demonstrably disturbed, is sufficient justification for evaluation, and 2) at least one of the previous evaluations was undertaken under the supervision of an individual that I would not trust to tie their own bootlaces never mind run an archaeological project successfully.in which document did you put this, surely it has to go in the dba and if you had reiterated it thought the conclusion which should have been a conclusion in response to a set of aims and purposed of the document. Possibly you also request that the snivelling dba writers make their aim purpose to collate the known archaeology so that they can conclude we have collated the known archaeology.
There is no way that you are going to convince the client that the 'access condition' carries too much risk, and that an evaluation would be a better strategy in terms of risk management. I am surprised they still need you around.
Unless what kind of client is this dimâ¦and you have got the curator going around posing .I donât think its private client