21st June 2006, 09:47 AM
Vulpes,
I stand by it regardless. In this particular case Troll has said that the topsoil removal was largely unsupervised.
In my experience machine drivers supplied by the developer quite often acquire the negative attitude towards archs that their bosses may have. This makes supervising them a diplomatic balancing act. A simple request like "could you re-scrape that area because we haven't gone deep enough" can become a direct affront to their ability to operate a machine, in a way that it seldom does when supervising a hired in driver, who just does whatever you ask, and will probably be used to working with you.
Also, and more importantly, employees of the developer may be operating under guidelines that conflict with archaeological practice. The best example of this would be where topsoil is stockpiled for re-use (as was probably occurring on Troll's quarry site) and the drivers are under orders to not mix it with the underlying b-horizon. This invariably results in a site that is undermachined, with a thin band of topsoil left to obscure much of the archaeology. Or they have been told to finish a strip in a day when good work would require two. This occurs whether under archaeological supervision or not, for the previously mentioned diplomatic reasons.
There are exceptions, and I have managed to get good machining done on a quarry site, so I'm not completely un-diplomatic, but in general hired in drivers who you know, who don't have conflicting instructions, or negative feelings about the archs, and who will do exactly what you ask no matter how absurd by their standards, do a better job than developer supplied ones.
I stand by it regardless. In this particular case Troll has said that the topsoil removal was largely unsupervised.
In my experience machine drivers supplied by the developer quite often acquire the negative attitude towards archs that their bosses may have. This makes supervising them a diplomatic balancing act. A simple request like "could you re-scrape that area because we haven't gone deep enough" can become a direct affront to their ability to operate a machine, in a way that it seldom does when supervising a hired in driver, who just does whatever you ask, and will probably be used to working with you.
Also, and more importantly, employees of the developer may be operating under guidelines that conflict with archaeological practice. The best example of this would be where topsoil is stockpiled for re-use (as was probably occurring on Troll's quarry site) and the drivers are under orders to not mix it with the underlying b-horizon. This invariably results in a site that is undermachined, with a thin band of topsoil left to obscure much of the archaeology. Or they have been told to finish a strip in a day when good work would require two. This occurs whether under archaeological supervision or not, for the previously mentioned diplomatic reasons.
There are exceptions, and I have managed to get good machining done on a quarry site, so I'm not completely un-diplomatic, but in general hired in drivers who you know, who don't have conflicting instructions, or negative feelings about the archs, and who will do exactly what you ask no matter how absurd by their standards, do a better job than developer supplied ones.