17th October 2005, 11:29 PM
Hi Slav. Sounds good, also sound very similar to the concept of the Bournemouth AIP.For clarity, here`s why I`m after the data....
On other threads, over many months, the view that commercialism and the lack of policed standards impedes the standards of archaeological endeavour, has been a recurring theme. I`m trying to understand the scale of commercial archaeological endeavour since the introduction of ppg15/16. For example, if someone told you that 50,000 archaeological sites had been subjected to competetive tendering and it`s inevitable ills, the scale of the issue would become apparent very quickly.Conversely, if (ridiculous I know) only a couple of hundred sites had been victim to the current system-well, thats a little different. What do you think? Am I barking up the wrong tree or, simply barking?
On other threads, over many months, the view that commercialism and the lack of policed standards impedes the standards of archaeological endeavour, has been a recurring theme. I`m trying to understand the scale of commercial archaeological endeavour since the introduction of ppg15/16. For example, if someone told you that 50,000 archaeological sites had been subjected to competetive tendering and it`s inevitable ills, the scale of the issue would become apparent very quickly.Conversely, if (ridiculous I know) only a couple of hundred sites had been victim to the current system-well, thats a little different. What do you think? Am I barking up the wrong tree or, simply barking?