13th July 2005, 04:33 PM
This debate seems very polarised, and I have something to say about quite a few of the comments made in this thread.
In practice, the value of a WB depends on circumstances. As a consultant working on large development and infrastructure projects, watching briefs are rarely my first choice, and I only recommend them if certain criteria can be met:
EITHER:
- previous investigation has failed to identify any significant archaeology(agreed with curator) that could be targeted by a different form of investigation, but we still think there is a risk that something is there;
OR:
- on extensive development sites, previous investigation has only identified very low-density, low-significance remains spread over a large area;
AND:
- I know that the topsoil strip/excavation method/plant to be used is such that the archaeologist has a good chance of identifying the remains.
If I can't meet these criteria, I look for another solution.
I also think that there is no point in using a WB if you don't put in explicit provisions for development to be suspended to allow investigation if something is found, and I always allow for that investigation to be to the same standard as a formal excavation. I always warn my client that this could happen and explain the potential risk that they carry if there is a WB, and tell them to allow extra time in their programme/extra money in their risk pot. I have no hesitation in stopping the client's development work and I have done so. However, part of my job is also to help the client find ways to manage the process to minimise the effect of a suspension.
On another topic raised in this debate, I never allow the archaeological contractor to go direct to the curator. This is not because I want to supress anything - I will always report any discoveries to the curator myself. It is because the client, who is paying for the work, is entitled to have their own representative involved in any discussions about what to do witht the archaeology that has been found. Some curators are inclined to give instructions to the contractor, which they are not entitled to do, and some contractors will follow those instructions without reference to the client - who would not then be obliged to pay them.
Most references to consultants in this debate assume that we are there to grind down the archaeology in the client's interest. However, most clients that I work with, once they have got a price for the job and a specified standard to which the work is to be done, want to get what they are paying for. Grief with curators is a problem for them and they prefer to avoid it.
In my experience, however, the hardest thing in my job is often trying to get the contractor to do the work to the standard specified. Curators often cannot monitor properly, because they are under-resourced, but we can do it and we do.
1man1desk
In practice, the value of a WB depends on circumstances. As a consultant working on large development and infrastructure projects, watching briefs are rarely my first choice, and I only recommend them if certain criteria can be met:
EITHER:
- previous investigation has failed to identify any significant archaeology(agreed with curator) that could be targeted by a different form of investigation, but we still think there is a risk that something is there;
OR:
- on extensive development sites, previous investigation has only identified very low-density, low-significance remains spread over a large area;
AND:
- I know that the topsoil strip/excavation method/plant to be used is such that the archaeologist has a good chance of identifying the remains.
If I can't meet these criteria, I look for another solution.
I also think that there is no point in using a WB if you don't put in explicit provisions for development to be suspended to allow investigation if something is found, and I always allow for that investigation to be to the same standard as a formal excavation. I always warn my client that this could happen and explain the potential risk that they carry if there is a WB, and tell them to allow extra time in their programme/extra money in their risk pot. I have no hesitation in stopping the client's development work and I have done so. However, part of my job is also to help the client find ways to manage the process to minimise the effect of a suspension.
On another topic raised in this debate, I never allow the archaeological contractor to go direct to the curator. This is not because I want to supress anything - I will always report any discoveries to the curator myself. It is because the client, who is paying for the work, is entitled to have their own representative involved in any discussions about what to do witht the archaeology that has been found. Some curators are inclined to give instructions to the contractor, which they are not entitled to do, and some contractors will follow those instructions without reference to the client - who would not then be obliged to pay them.
Most references to consultants in this debate assume that we are there to grind down the archaeology in the client's interest. However, most clients that I work with, once they have got a price for the job and a specified standard to which the work is to be done, want to get what they are paying for. Grief with curators is a problem for them and they prefer to avoid it.
In my experience, however, the hardest thing in my job is often trying to get the contractor to do the work to the standard specified. Curators often cannot monitor properly, because they are under-resourced, but we can do it and we do.
1man1desk