+- 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: single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? (/showthread.php?tid=1899)
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - Alfie - 27th May 2005
I did a monitoring visit last year to find a private sector contractor excavating a saxon burial ground using a staff of 6 untrained metal detectorists using spoons. I like to think I was overly dogmatic with him. I also know of a MIFA curator up north( now retired) who dugs SAMs of a weekend for treasure. Archaeologists are a cross section of society, thats all.
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - BAJR Host - 27th May 2005
I have to confess I love being a curator..
I still work in the field and still believe that teh point is to do the archaeology as good as you can... never as quickly or as cheaply or as secretly... you are there to do archaeology to the best that you can... and if you can't... then you find help from others.
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - deepdigger - 28th May 2005
I've just this week done a watching brief that was strip and record. all week up a mountain in south wales in the pouring rain to find nowt at all.
deep
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - monitor lizard - 28th May 2005
Sorry this is a long one.
I have to push a big smile to BAJR - I too love being a curator. As I see it, we have two main responsibilities. The first is to ensure that the archaeological resource is protected. And that is more often than not through the planning process, though it comes up in other areas too (countryside schemes, statutory undertakers, metal detectors whatever) to be defensible to a court of law, if required. The second is to make sure that everyone else knows what you've found, and to re-assess that as and when.
It is totally correct that at present no one polices the police. Other than the aforesaid court of law. But what developer is going to go to court to argue you did too little? My group has argued the death over becoming an RAO. But until the IFA says what standards they would require of an RAO Curatorial group, and how and by whom that will be monitored, we won't do it. Most of us are in the IFA anyway, so have already signed up to that code of conduct.
I personally hate watching briefs and try to use them as little as possible. If I think there's archaeology, I get trial trenches done. Saves hassle in the long run, and gets things dealt with better. However, as I work in a predominately urban area, these are seldom done before a planning application has been determined.
I do use strip map and sample exercises, but the canny consultant would be wise to still ask for an evaluation first. What if there is someting requiring preservation in situ, or a massive amount of archaeology is uncovered? That could potentially scupper some pip pipelines/roadworks, and the way english heritage is presently funding things, they are unlikely to fund unexpected discoveries. And that can lead to impossible compromise.
And (finally) to pick up on something Peter said. Have you noticed on BAJR that the pay and requirements for curators is decreasing rapidly? I think there was one DC job advertised recently for as little as ?15k (please correct me if I'm wrong). Local authorites are constantly devaluing the role and value of a curator. The good ones are decamping to better paid consultancy work. And the new ones have less and less experience (sometimes they are only advertise with 3 years excavation work) and the chance that this new crop will stand up and shout, call developers on bad practice and show some mettle, will, I fear, get even more rare.
But this has deviated even further from the original single context topic - may start a new thread (if I can figure out how to do so....
).ML
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - troll - 28th May 2005
Some extremely important observations there-I still say that it is high time for a complete re-assessment of how we do things.Starting with, I might add (again) that, "professional" bodies need to listen to the people who do this for a living.Please, please start a new thread Lizard-click on "new topic" at bottom of the page.Look forward to this.....
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - troll - 1st June 2005
Was discussing on-site today, if single context recording (SCR), in use in a deeply-stratified urban context then, supervisory staff should be maintaining the integrity of the record. Supervisors and on occasion above, cannot be expected to excavate and maintain the record simultaneously. Snag sheets? Anyone put them up on the board anymore? Hand-over sheets for orphaned archaeology with a prospective foster parent just arrived-how many times has a digger not been provided with an adequate record of work already carried out on his/her little patch of site? Duplications? Ommissions? I think
single context recording is sexy and, has skip-loads of potential if-controlled by dedicated staff (no pun intended). Is it neccesary to allocate a drawing number? Won`t context number suffice in a SCR environment? still recovering from spontaneous bladder-emptying ref "diggin with spoons" above...
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - achingknees - 2nd June 2005
non-checked records cause big headaches later on
good supervisors get the right balance between being on site and checking records in the hut. plan number = context number in my book. it's that easy. allocating a separate number is not only unnecessary but time consuming and offers potential for more cock ups.
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - BAJR Host - 2nd June 2005
Yup it is as simple as that... also the ability to be flexible... all you need is two located points on a plan to know where it is..
North is always UP... and yes a cut is a different number from a fill... as i love to say... numbers are free.!!
However A single context sytem is best suited to deep start urban sites... however it can be translated into rural settings when done with a bit of thought.
Another day another WSI?
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - the invisible man - 2nd June 2005
Two located points? A grid square ref in the bottom left corner will do the trick (assuming you've got MOLAS type pre-printed single context drawing sheets....)
Aha though, supposing yur context goes over two or more sheets? Your drawing numbers then have to become xxx/1, xxx/2 etc! And of course sections need drawing numbers...
Well of course a cut has a different context number to a deposit, but are you always drawing the cut and not the deposit?
You can tell I'm bored, can't you?
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
single context system-bogs dollox or nightmare? - achingknees - 3rd June 2005
In reply to the bored invisible one...One located point not much good. That MoLAS sheet could just swivel all over the place!
If a context goes over your grid unit it gets labelled e.g. 456a, 456b etc, with a 2d plan matrix to show their spatial arrangement.
I only record sections if they tell me something. Routine half-sectioning is an annoying habit that many archaeologists cannot give up. It has become anathema to not section in many units, but if you think about it most section drawings just illustrate dimensions.
Generally wouldn't bother planning a fill deposit, just cuts and positive features (wall, layer etc). There are exceptions.