+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: standards anyone? (/showthread.php?tid=4047)
standards anyone? - tmsarch - 6th September 2011
P Prentice Wrote:using sampling strategies which no mounty could ever get past a consultant!!
I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here - surely it is the other way round, consultants trying to get poorer sampling strategies past the curatorial archaeologist...:face-stir:. As a development control archaeologist I don't have to get anything past consultants, they have to get things past me. If I have asked for a specific sampling strategy then I'd expect it to be delivered - there'd have to be a damned good reason not to. That being said a sampling strategy has to be just that - a strategy, designed to answer questions and provide meaningful and useful data. It doesn't necessarily mean sampling everything - that would be no strategy at all. I'd love to know what this university's sampling strategy involved and why it wouldn't happen on a commercial excavation - perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
standards anyone? - GnomeKing - 6th September 2011
good points TiM-s : although i feel the need to point out (again) that primary fieldwork (especially commercial) is not part of the Experimental Sciences, but rather part of the older Naturalistic Sciences....minute observation, description, and cataloguing are the essential tasks. > observation of nature > > in extremis, one can not truly devise a sampling strategy until the site is excavated and interpreted....
Since observational data and specimen collection are at the heart of excavation orientated archaeology (rather than abstract theory testing), and the natural condition (or sample population) is unknown, there must always be large amounts of redundant data.
that is not a problem. that is how observational sciences work. >> as others have said the problem lies with people in positions to enforce 'standards', who are too under-resourced, or too ignorant, or simply too corrupt to do their jobs properly
standards anyone? - BAJR - 7th September 2011
Lets keep this thread general and on topic about the standards issue, rather than use it to name and shame people who are perceived at not following these standards. It is called libel... and I become the one that gets the legal letter.
It also means I can't deal with that company as I have to then bend my knee and apologise. Not the first time that I have had to back down from a company, because of what has been said here.
So - keep it general and try not to get too angry at one particular company or individual
That previous post could have been rewritten to comply with AUP. ( I still have it, and can - if wanted - edit it accordingly
standards anyone? - Sith - 7th September 2011
tmsarch Wrote:..consultants trying to get poorer sampling strategies past the curatorial archaeologist..
Nope. We usually discuss and agree the need for any 'special' sampling strategy with the curator in advance or during work following discussions with a specialist. Apart from that we usually recommend following the EH Environmental Archaeology guidelines and taking advice froma specialist as and when required.
standards anyone? - P Prentice - 7th September 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:talking to colleagues who have worked on some .......uni training digs range in standard from piss-poor ...... the same way as commercial work. .....have to hire in supervisors etc to cover the director/uni staff's 'shortcomings' (which is why I know commercial workforce who've worked on them)?
your colleagues failing to raise the standards then :face-stir:
standards anyone? - P Prentice - 7th September 2011
tmsarch Wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here - surely it is the other way round, consultants trying to get poorer sampling strategies past the curatorial archaeologist...:face-stir:. As a development control archaeologist I don't have to get anything past consultants, they have to get things past me. If I have asked for a specific sampling strategy then I'd expect it to be delivered - there'd have to be a damned good reason not to. That being said a sampling strategy has to be just that - a strategy, designed to answer questions and provide meaningful and useful data. It doesn't necessarily mean sampling everything - that would be no strategy at all. I'd love to know what this university's sampling strategy involved and why it wouldn't happen on a commercial excavation - perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
i stand by what i said - i've seen mounties crumble when faced with an experienced consultants argument
100% excavation - thats my favourite strategy
standards anyone? - Marcus Brody - 7th September 2011
P Prentice Wrote:i stand by what i said - i've seen mounties crumble when faced with an experienced consultants argument
100% excavation - thats my favourite strategy
If something's going to be completely destroyed by a development, I'd always start from the position that 100% excavation will be needed. After all, it will be the only chance to recover information from the site before it's entirely removed, so if it's not fully excavated, there's always the possibility that its interpretation will be based on an unrepresentative subset of the evidence available (ie, taking out the other half of that pit may produce the single sherd of pottery that demonstrates the site was occupied 1000 years earlier than previously thought). Percentage sampling may be useful at the evaluation stage, as it allows the contractor to assess the nature and significance of features present on the site, and so provide an indication to the developer of the time and cost likely to be needed to excavate it, but if the development proceeds to the next stage, I'd assume that we'd need to fully excavate everything that's going to be destroyed.
In this regard, I've seen some piss-poor academic strategies, along the lines of 'we've excavated 5% of the pits on the site, we now fully understand what's going on, and it handily supports the contention made in the director's PhD'. Of course this is not the case on all academic sites, but I'd go along with the suggestion made above that you get good and bad fieldwork in the academic sector, just as in the commercial.
standards anyone? - GnomeKing - 7th September 2011
@ HOST:
yes, please edit - probably too close to the bone there - i apologise.......although what i am getting at is that nothing seems likely to change unless specific failures are indeed followed up (eg by county).
Lets stick with Company A and B inst
standards anyone? - BAJR - 8th September 2011
Thanks Gnome... I will get on it when I get back from work.
standards anyone? - Jack - 8th September 2011
!All this secret talk about who did what has got me infuriatingly interested with no hope of knowing whats going on! Ah well nearly Friday.As to a 100% excavation strategy haven't we been at this discussion before? Does that include 100% hand-excavation/recording of a buried soil?
100% of relationships - yes
100% recording of 'ritual'/burial relate features
50% of discrete features with proviso for 100% if needed (for finds, soil samples and a greater understanding of the formation processes and/or shape)
50% of domestic/settlement related features
20% of the length of linears - sometimes reduced to 10% in the case of very long /empty/ boring field boundaries or where destruction will not be complete
Are the usual % sample excavation strategy that seems common to most jobs (and specified by the county)
But have percentages increased on some sites due to importance of the remains, proximity to scheduled sites etc.
Never come across 100% excavation (aka 100% destruction) strategy except on research digs.