26th February 2007, 12:51 PM
well here is one where you knew about it⦠but did nothing?
"quote:
I know of a recent example of dba where my ordnance survey map had Anglo-Saxon Cemetery written on it that the propaganda magnificently failed to notice."
I can assure you that I put it in writing, much to my detriment.
But the truth is that if they had had a genuine trench evaluation scheme and done by an archaeologist that was going to do the excavations who had previously done the dba I wouldnât have given a monkies that the dba had missed it. back to Troll I suggest that dbas done by the consultants âpipelines, roads, quarries, major infrastructure, a lot of unit work are purposely not allowed to be done by the âarchaeologistâ and is the very first undermining of the archaeologists integrity on those projects-I doubt that it has anything to do with small unit scams. I can see a point to the archaeologist who is going to undertake the field work doing the dba. I think that you could call one of those an âarchaeologicalâ dba where the archaeologist is establishing their competence. I can imagine it being shown about on site and the diggers giving it a bit of feed back....all adding to the competence of the âarchaeologistâ not the RAO blaablaablaa
Clients come to me before they have bought the site before they have plans sometimes with plans that they are going to change I get work where they do material starts which can get really confusing but I think that they come to me early because they believe that I will give them an assessments of costs and likely outcomes for various scenarios. And if you take yourâ I am going to getcher guiseâ off you might be able to spot what is lttle more than a confidence trick in client liaison-would you rather they came to me after planning permission? I think whats getting your goat is that you want them to go to you. I can assure you that you would be seriously overworked. They are serious players (pig ugly) protecting their capital. In the main its time that they are short of. Every time you mention council you get the full Muslim greeting they dont want you going anywhere near the council until they are ready. I give them in my experience sites like this lets say 150 metres from the village church is all they have given you-this is what happened at X,Y and Z, you then start the caveats X possibly was an old permission pre archaeology, Y was a 1890 quarry and Z actually was right next to the church and was watching brief- if you think that their brains wont melt you try to explain that proximity to church shouldnât be seen as more of an archaeological factor than a myriad of others which should be researched and just when you sit back thinking that you have done your bit they start with next door didnt get a condition (better still I just finished a job in the church!) I have a little old lady with a condition on at the moment for a small extension who I am going to do for free because at the bottom of her garden there as a fifteen metre water mains (french owned) easement that goes on 1.5 km archaeologistless throughout, her sons a builder-they are polite to my face but I wouldnât be.
Now I watch twit team having absolutely no difficulty shoving a trench in here then one there different lengths all in the full flowing tradition of archaeological assessment. Planning permission not required.... No doubt they have a fame seeking DC moonlighting for the project but what is presented is the ease of taking a machine and stripping of the turf -this weekend I watched them go through two villages in a few days
But thankfully for all the consultants out there we have
âWork on a site has to be justified, based on a reasonable argument that there is an archaeological potentialâ- minimum a days work yes client archaeological potential
âYou do both ⦠one to inform you about what is known about that area⦠the other to investigate subsurface. I have very rarely seen one without the other⦠in some cases⦠the DBA has shown (to the benefit of the developer) that the area was extensively quarried in the 1890s⦠thus reducing the area required for evaluation⦠if you had gone in with your evaluation trenches⦠without doing a proper DBA⦠then you would cost your client money.â
Now this 1890s quarry that you somehow saved the developer money surely you would have preferred evaluation trenches which showed you extents depths natural. Bloody good site for swapcies. I dont want you to get eye strain staring at all those maps sticking your nose in where its not needed
Now if you every time you picked up the phone and just asked âhave you done any trenchs yetâ I and many others could get our little trowels smaller
"quote:
I know of a recent example of dba where my ordnance survey map had Anglo-Saxon Cemetery written on it that the propaganda magnificently failed to notice."
I can assure you that I put it in writing, much to my detriment.
But the truth is that if they had had a genuine trench evaluation scheme and done by an archaeologist that was going to do the excavations who had previously done the dba I wouldnât have given a monkies that the dba had missed it. back to Troll I suggest that dbas done by the consultants âpipelines, roads, quarries, major infrastructure, a lot of unit work are purposely not allowed to be done by the âarchaeologistâ and is the very first undermining of the archaeologists integrity on those projects-I doubt that it has anything to do with small unit scams. I can see a point to the archaeologist who is going to undertake the field work doing the dba. I think that you could call one of those an âarchaeologicalâ dba where the archaeologist is establishing their competence. I can imagine it being shown about on site and the diggers giving it a bit of feed back....all adding to the competence of the âarchaeologistâ not the RAO blaablaablaa
Clients come to me before they have bought the site before they have plans sometimes with plans that they are going to change I get work where they do material starts which can get really confusing but I think that they come to me early because they believe that I will give them an assessments of costs and likely outcomes for various scenarios. And if you take yourâ I am going to getcher guiseâ off you might be able to spot what is lttle more than a confidence trick in client liaison-would you rather they came to me after planning permission? I think whats getting your goat is that you want them to go to you. I can assure you that you would be seriously overworked. They are serious players (pig ugly) protecting their capital. In the main its time that they are short of. Every time you mention council you get the full Muslim greeting they dont want you going anywhere near the council until they are ready. I give them in my experience sites like this lets say 150 metres from the village church is all they have given you-this is what happened at X,Y and Z, you then start the caveats X possibly was an old permission pre archaeology, Y was a 1890 quarry and Z actually was right next to the church and was watching brief- if you think that their brains wont melt you try to explain that proximity to church shouldnât be seen as more of an archaeological factor than a myriad of others which should be researched and just when you sit back thinking that you have done your bit they start with next door didnt get a condition (better still I just finished a job in the church!) I have a little old lady with a condition on at the moment for a small extension who I am going to do for free because at the bottom of her garden there as a fifteen metre water mains (french owned) easement that goes on 1.5 km archaeologistless throughout, her sons a builder-they are polite to my face but I wouldnât be.
Now I watch twit team having absolutely no difficulty shoving a trench in here then one there different lengths all in the full flowing tradition of archaeological assessment. Planning permission not required.... No doubt they have a fame seeking DC moonlighting for the project but what is presented is the ease of taking a machine and stripping of the turf -this weekend I watched them go through two villages in a few days
But thankfully for all the consultants out there we have
âWork on a site has to be justified, based on a reasonable argument that there is an archaeological potentialâ- minimum a days work yes client archaeological potential
âYou do both ⦠one to inform you about what is known about that area⦠the other to investigate subsurface. I have very rarely seen one without the other⦠in some cases⦠the DBA has shown (to the benefit of the developer) that the area was extensively quarried in the 1890s⦠thus reducing the area required for evaluation⦠if you had gone in with your evaluation trenches⦠without doing a proper DBA⦠then you would cost your client money.â
Now this 1890s quarry that you somehow saved the developer money surely you would have preferred evaluation trenches which showed you extents depths natural. Bloody good site for swapcies. I dont want you to get eye strain staring at all those maps sticking your nose in where its not needed
Now if you every time you picked up the phone and just asked âhave you done any trenchs yetâ I and many others could get our little trowels smaller