27th June 2008, 03:35 PM
When we, as archaeologists, decide that a fieldwork operation is necessary, it generally costs someone else a lot of money. Not all of those people have any interest in archaeology, and having their money spent for them in this way can make them very hostile.
We are only able to make these decisions because we are supported by public policy, which is set by politicians, not archaeologists. It is therefore very important that we, as archaeologists, can justify the decisions we make, based on the merits of each individual case.
If we start to make blanket decisions that impose costs on other people on a knee-jerk basis, we will get caught out at some point not being able to justify ourselves, and that will undermine our continued ability to impose archaeological requirements where they are really needed.
So, while it may be true that we would normally expect a pipeline to need a watching brief, we still need to justify the need on the merits of each individual case. We therefore have to accept that, occasionally, there probably will be circumstances where a WB is not required along the whole length.
All decisions on the need for developer-funded archaeology are effectively based on a risk assessment (i.e. how likely is it, in this particular case, that something significant will be missed if we do nothing?).
We cannot, and do not, take an attitude that we must always do something, just on the off-chance. It would be most irresponsible and unjust for us to do so, and if we did we would soon find that we lost the political and moral backing that enables developer-funded archaeology to continue.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
We are only able to make these decisions because we are supported by public policy, which is set by politicians, not archaeologists. It is therefore very important that we, as archaeologists, can justify the decisions we make, based on the merits of each individual case.
If we start to make blanket decisions that impose costs on other people on a knee-jerk basis, we will get caught out at some point not being able to justify ourselves, and that will undermine our continued ability to impose archaeological requirements where they are really needed.
So, while it may be true that we would normally expect a pipeline to need a watching brief, we still need to justify the need on the merits of each individual case. We therefore have to accept that, occasionally, there probably will be circumstances where a WB is not required along the whole length.
All decisions on the need for developer-funded archaeology are effectively based on a risk assessment (i.e. how likely is it, in this particular case, that something significant will be missed if we do nothing?).
We cannot, and do not, take an attitude that we must always do something, just on the off-chance. It would be most irresponsible and unjust for us to do so, and if we did we would soon find that we lost the political and moral backing that enables developer-funded archaeology to continue.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished