2nd July 2010, 03:25 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:Arnt you trying to turn it into a question of professionalisum like this bod who is worried about taking levels back to an OD. The only excuse that an archaeologist should go anywhere near a developers hole is that developers are constantly missing significant archaeology which in my experience they are not, it?s the curation which has not sort an inexpensive evaluation. We the archaeologists are trying to minimise this wanton destruction mainly through preservation by record but in this case applied to trench walls cut by someone else. We even pretend that they are contexts, a magical ability to turn a single context planning technique through 90 degrees. The watching brief exercise is eminently about having someone who can be bothered to go and look for some archaeology for the cheapest prise but on a site that we have next to no evidence that there might be anything of interest. It?s a miserable exercise from start to finish. The money paid by the developer does nothing for archaeology. It?s a monitoring ponce. It seems to me that the activity is minimum territory. Having someone there who has dug a 100 skeles because they just might recognise a neonate digit would be a waste of life.
I am pretty sure that after unpacking the dumpy once or twice, lent the staff up against the trench once or twice picked it up from being blown down then gone and written the greyest negative report ever that the equipment will be left in the transport until there is a good excuse to use it and it wont be on a watching brief.
Hi
I presume from this that you do not take on work from developers that involve you carrying out a watching brief?
Steven