1st June 2005, 08:22 PM
Just to play devil's advocate for a bit, I'd like to ask....what is the problem with contracting archaeologists? I've seen so many sites recently where the contracting unit has actively argued against doing any additional archaeological work even in situations where the site will be completely destroyed by later development works, have argued the developer's viewpoint that a condition should be discharged against the advice of the curator beacuse the developer has decided that they've paid enough, or have left features unexcavated simply because they have a 'feeling' that they're either natural or modern, even in one case where burials were subsequently found in a 'natural' feature. Presumably this is because they've put in a fixed price tender for a job, but have encountered more complex archaeology than they budgeted for, but I'd suggest that this is hardly in the best interests of archaeology. And before anyone says that this is the fault of the project managers and other desk-jockeys in the offices, I recently heard about a group of diggers recently who were working on a peach of a site, but spent much of their time moaning that they were being made to excavate 100% of features that would later be entirely removed by construction on the site. This despite the fact that the curator, project officer and project manager all agreed that this was the correct course of action, there was no shortage of money or real pressure to finish the site by a fixed date. The diggers appeared to feel that being made to excavate 100% of a feature was some sort of punishment, and no matter how often the reasons for it were explained, continued to moan about it.
Honestly, back in my day we'd have considered ourselves lucky to have a site like that. Diggers today, they don't know they're born!
Honestly, back in my day we'd have considered ourselves lucky to have a site like that. Diggers today, they don't know they're born!