22nd October 2010, 09:03 AM
Dinosaur Wrote:yes, but I don't think the public are terribly interested in being told that it's not, if you do that too often they might start querying why all the money gets spent on archaeology in the first place.
to be honest they can query all they like; the principle is very simple and straight-forward: polluter pays. there are any number of clients who patently see archaeology (along with bats, newts etc.) as environmental issues to be paid for that they go away. this stands as much for private individuals as companies in my experience; which is not to say that they all wish it, either.
but it comes back to that aspect of technical reports and professional knowledge and how we disseminate that to the public; if an area is consistently blank, that can be used to provide a contrast with the surrounding area's relative richness. and again the question is asked 'why?' and off we set on our theoretical journey to tell a story why. which the client then gets told when they ask 'why do i have to pay?' to be honest, what i find harder to justify is why one person has to have archaeological work done prior to their building work, when their neighbour who had building work done in the past couple of years did not have to have archaeological work done. the answer that it is the DC's responsibility not mine rarely provides comfort and no succour in their (not infrequent) dispute with the DC or CA over why they should pay for work. what is funny is how often (relatively speaking) the suspicion is manifested that the CA and we (service providers) are in cahoots