+- 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: DBAs (/showthread.php?tid=1411)
Pages:
1
2
DBAs - Paul Belford - 15th February 2009
To answer Peter's specific point:
Quote:quote:So I ask Paul to tell us what date he things [sic] things should be no longer regarded as archaeological?
I regard archaeology as the study of past society through the evidence of its remains, regardless of the time frame of that society. These remains are essentially "material culture", but that would include landscapes and buildings as well as artefacts and ecofacts.
Personally I regard yesterday as archaeology just as much as the Iron Age. Have a look at some of the Change and Creation work being done by EH, or John Schofield's recently widely reported archaeological study of the Greenham Common Peace Camps. But then I am speaking as someone whose old transit van was the subject of an archaeological excavation!
In short, I don't have a cut-off date.
DBAs - drpeterwardle - 15th February 2009
Precisely Paul.
We are talking about the definition of archaeology in the planning system and there are difficulties in definition. So at present it is perfectly possible for a historic building above ground not to be recorded before demolition but the foundations of that building to be archaeologically excavated. This is however another discussion. To suggest that your transit van has the same archaeological value as an iron age site I think misses the point.
Any way lets get back to maps.
Peter
DBAs - Paul Belford - 15th February 2009
I agree that this is slightly off-topic...
...but just to clarify, I did not argue that my transit van had the same value as an iron age site. Rather I am simply saying that they are all archaeology. The value or significance of that archaeology - both to us as archaeologists and to society at large - is another matter. Different parts of the archaeological record have different value (or significance) to different members of society.
The question of value and significance is another matter entirely, as I am sure we both agree!
Quote:quote:So at present it is perfectly possible for a historic building above ground not to be recorded before demolition but the foundations of that building to be archaeologically excavated.
One of the tragedies of the present system (and one of the reasons I supported the HPR) was that the archaeological recording and analysis of above- and below-ground remains is not integrated in the way it ought to be.
DBAs - Windbag - 16th February 2009
Some great advice here. In order to clarify things for Richard:
1) I would say that the best start for your DBA is to look at ones produced by your organization (if relevant) as a template- ask your manager for good examples.
2) As mentioned by tmsarch and others, you need to tailor the sources you examine to your budget/ time. How long have you got, and which record offices can you visit in that time?
3) You need to consider the geographical area and nature of what you are assessing. The sources at your disposal will depend on where you are: rural vs urban; Scotland vs England and Wales (e.g. no tithe or enclosure maps in Scotland, but they do have the Ordnance Survey Name Book. There'll be variations from region to region within England). Assuming you are doing a DBA for a development, then the nature of the development, such as depth and extent of groundworks, will also affect how you approach the work.
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
DBAs - Sith - 16th February 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford
...but just to clarify, I did not argue that my transit van had the same value as an iron age site. Rather I am simply saying that they are all archaeology. The value or significance of that archaeology - both to us as archaeologists and to society at large - is another matter. Different parts of the archaeological record have different value (or significance) to different members of society.
The above (and some other parts of your exchange with DrPeter) is interesting because it opens a whole can of worms on the definition of a DBA.
Depending on its ultimate purpose, we oftem produce Desk-Based [u]Assessments</u> which (surprise, surprise) include an assessment of the value of each site; or Desk-Based [u]Studies</u> which are really just a descriptive account with a gazetteer.
I never cease to be amazed at the number of Environmental Impact Assessments/Statement which include archaeology or cultural heritage sections that do not appear to actually assess the resource in any way.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Your lack of archaeological imagination disappoints me Curator
DBAs - Rachelintheoffice - 16th February 2009
When consulting maps for rural areas, don't forget the 1910 Land Tax records: these were drawn up in the field on the current 25" OS sheets, and tend to have loads of interesting notes written on them.
DBAs - chert - 17th February 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Just to clarify two comments.
It is perfectly possible to have 20 or more plans and maps in an urban dba- my point there is little point in duplicating infomation.
Chert said.
"When reproducing maps, try to keep them to scale, or at least to a consistent scale where possible. Think evaluation, if you know to the nearest metre where building X was, you can accurately locate your evaluation trench over it!"
Yes keep the plans to scale and mark the scale on the plan. Locating things to the nearest metre will only be done with luck given that for example OS plans are drawn to an accuracy of [u]+</u>2.5m.
Peter Wardle
If there are two completely separate surveys telling you the same thing, then it is corroboration rather than duplication. I.e. two independent witnesses saw the same thing at the same location.
I wouldn't duplicate a survey that was simply a rehash of an earlier survey.
I was thinking in particular of certain UK cities, e.g. Glasgow, that were surveyed by the OS at 1:500, which was a far more detailed and accurate survey than the present 1:1250. Where they have been tried against excavated evidence I have found them a good match. I thought I was being rather generous at a metre!
A good cop out is to go back to the sources, the original vertical aerial photographs used by the OS from c. 1944 onwards. For England these are in EH, Swindon and in Scotland the RCAHMS. For some reason Wales is different again and has its own body seemingly unrelated to Cadw or RCAHMW, I disremember its title.
I found EH happy to let me reproduce extracts from verts for DBAs. It is cheaper on the OS licensing, but heavier on ink/toner usage! Use sparingly and for impact.
For Scotland, to go with the 1st ed. 6" mapping there are the surviving Ordnance Name Books, with loads of archaeological information, most, if not all of which is duplicated in the NMRS.
Anyway, have fun Richard - DBAs are great. I'm off to do yet another one in deepest darkest Zummerzett "I am a zyder drinker... la la, la, la la, la la"
DBAs - RedEarth - 17th February 2009
It looks like pretty much everything has been covered so far, all I would add is that the Census can be quite useful in the right circumstances - for an urban area of housing, anything where there might be small-scale industries, or looking at individual farmsteads. The 1910 valuations are essential if you want to know owner/occupier details as there is usually an accompanying schedule in the same way as the Tithe Maps. This sort of information may not always be helpful but it is worth considering - owner details can point you in the direction of a particular family and then to a collection in the Record Office relating to them, occupier details might explain modifications to a particular building due to changes in use and so on. Of course, this depends on whether you are enlightened enough to consider the 19th and 20th century interesting from an archaeological point of view!
I will look at anything I can get my hands on, from modern local histories (dismiss these at your peril), to weighty academic tomes, antiquarian works (again, dismiss them at your peril), maps especially, and any number of original documentary sources. It takes time, familiarity and experience to work out what is and isn't going to be useful.
In terms of maps, I look at it like a game of Kelly's Eye (if that's the right name). What is different on each one. If there is basically no change from one map to the next you have to ask if there is any point including a copy of it in the report.