16th October 2005, 03:26 PM
I think I've been quite lucky in having dealt with a lot of companies who appear to have had a good graps on the archaeology which may crop up on their sites: whether they were being altruistic, public minded or just cynically seeking good PR didn't bother me, nor does it now so long as the funds and the time were there.
As to the subject of insurance, I think this might be another topic for the conference (perhaps with someone from a builders federation there to 'balance' things up?B)
). To a certain extent, if a consultant is involved there is an element of insurance if things go wrong. I can think of a few (that I wasn't directly involved in and I wouldn't discuss even if I was) that have been funded this way.
I'd also like to see some more research into the long term results of in situ preservation. Much of the time the way to ensure this is by manipulating piling designs etc to avoid features. I flicked through a study a while ago which meant through the 'halo' effect around piles and the damage this caused. Should we be looking to build something into project designs which calls for inspection of the in situ remains to check on their stability?[?]
As to the subject of insurance, I think this might be another topic for the conference (perhaps with someone from a builders federation there to 'balance' things up?B)
). To a certain extent, if a consultant is involved there is an element of insurance if things go wrong. I can think of a few (that I wasn't directly involved in and I wouldn't discuss even if I was) that have been funded this way.I'd also like to see some more research into the long term results of in situ preservation. Much of the time the way to ensure this is by manipulating piling designs etc to avoid features. I flicked through a study a while ago which meant through the 'halo' effect around piles and the damage this caused. Should we be looking to build something into project designs which calls for inspection of the in situ remains to check on their stability?[?]