+- 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: Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss (/showthread.php?tid=4624)
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - Dinosaur - 17th October 2012
A few years back I dug a lot of disparate holes during development in an otherwise uninvestigated Norman timber castle (plus pretty much every other period, Meso, Neo, IA, Roman, early and late Saxon) the remainder of which is now 'in situ' under a block of flats - you telling me that whats left will survive any subsequent demolition process? Ha Ha Ha Ha.......... :face-crying:
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - notoverlookedfrontorrear - 17th October 2012
P Prentice Wrote:there is no such thing as preservation in situon which basis there is no such thing as preservation by record
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - TLF - 17th October 2012
Doug Wrote:It is when you take into account the advances in methods. Imagine if everyone in the 18th and 19th centuries, hell even 30 years ago, "archaeologists" had held off on using dynamite, paying labours by the number of gold objects they found but not for charcoal bone, etc., cutting through the "boring" layers to get to the "good" stuff, etc. how much more we would know today.
Pretty sure in 50 years our grand kids will be shaking their heads and saying, %)"?%* idiots.
That being said there is a trade off. Stuff rots, tomb robbers, etc. etc. at some point you need to dig it, it is reaching the point were you don't lose to much but our methods are the best. That though is an art and not a science.
Thing is though, if we carry on via that principle will anything ever get unearthed?
Granted, one question is should it even be unearthed?? But let's say for the argument's sake it should, in 50 years time our grandchildren may very well be saying "we should leave this incase better methods come along..." - and then in another 50 years the same, etc. etc.
I'm not saying we should run around dragging everything out the ground of course, but if roads/houses/whatever need to be built, and there's archaeology present, then it makes sense (to an extent) to salvage it
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - Doug - 17th October 2012
TLF Wrote:Thing is though, if we carry on via that principle will anything ever get unearthed?
Granted, one question is should it even be unearthed?? But let's say for the argument's sake it should, in 50 years time our grandchildren may very well be saying "we should leave this incase better methods come along..." - and then in another 50 years the same, etc. etc.
I'm not saying we should run around dragging everything out the ground of course, but if roads/houses/whatever need to be built, and there's archaeology present, then it makes sense (to an extent) to salvage it
I think you might have overlooked my last few words, it will need to be dug at some point before it is gone (however that might occur) preservation in situ MIGHT be the best option or it MIGHT not but we should not assume either way is the be all end all. The world is not black and white, preservation underground MIGHT be good in some senses and it MIGHT not be in the majority. I am against blanket decisions in favor of one or the other.
Luckily, such decisions are above my pay grade.
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - TLF - 17th October 2012
Doug Wrote:I think you might have overlooked my last few words, it will need to be dug at some point before it is gone (however that might occur) preservation in situ MIGHT be the best option or it MIGHT not but we should not assume either way is the be all end all. The world is not black and white, preservation underground MIGHT be good in some senses and it MIGHT not be in the majority. I am against blanket decisions in favor of one or the other.
Luckily, such decisions are above my pay grade.
Haha! And lightyears above mine.. but yeah I agree, nothing is ever black and white, and indeed I agree that there is always a level of perspective involved, I just think Archaeology seems to be avoiding excavation to an extent these days, perhaps because of financial restraints or even ethical stance, either way, for me it's a shame that what many archaeologists love about the profession (i.e. the digging) is becoming somewhat frowned upon.
I don't know, I might be being dramatic?
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - P Prentice - 18th October 2012
notoverlookedfrontorrear Wrote:on which basis there is no such thing as preservation by record
i agree, there is no such thing as preservation by record
we cannot preserve the past at all - and why would we want to
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - notoverlookedfrontorrear - 18th October 2012
then I suggest a de-scheduling programme
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - poodash - 18th October 2012
As hinted previously by other posters, preservation in situ is often used as a fig leaf by various interested parties (in my experience, though that might not be representative of all cases, this usually boils down to following a mitigation agenda set by archaeological consultants advising their client, as they are entitled and employed to act.) As are watching briefs (double ditto in that case.) Now here's two examples.
1. In London, I worked on a site where it was decided to test the decay of fairly low-grade (largely organic alluvial silts) anaerobic deposits in deposits exposed in the sections of piling pits. The supposed backstory was that the archaeological consultant, who favoured mitigation by sinking hand-excavated discrete piling pits and stung by criticism from various quarters that this was untested as effective mitigation did the decent thing and built into the project a programme of monitoring said deposits. When this monitoring demonstrated that decay had occurred and cd be expected to be greatly exacerbated by pumping an extremely dessicating component (concrete piles: which tend to absorb large amounts of moisture towards their proximity) into these deposits, the results were quietly forgotten.
However, I am more worried by this:
2. There are many sites on which I have been in attendance where archaeological consultants have used a watching brief condition in areas which ought to have been properly evaluated or have gone to further mitigation after evaluation. Of course, the consultant and client are happy that this is archaeology being done on the cheap. The contracting unit are happy because they are being paid on a day-rate for a minimum of mobilisation (and like negative evaluations, which is a whole can of often corrupt worms, can make a fair amount of cash for units in tight spot). But the poor sod on the ground has no proper method statement to work from (and wave in front of the various contractors' and sub-contractors' noses) and often minimal back-up from their Project Manager. Watching briefs have their place. But they do not take the place of evaluations or the consequent work required, and they shd not be used instead of proper excavation. And, like evaluations, they need to be specifically tailored to the job, and require a specific method statement thrashed out with all interested parties. There are ways of doing this on-site, if need be: but it's funny how most of the various Billy B*ll*cks (with a few exceptions) ain't really interested.
I'm not having a pop at anyone specifically here. But this was happening pre-2007 in the boom years and I think it's getting gradually worse. There is a lot of goodwill amongst construction contractors (both as companies and individuals) towards archaeologists (often more than the latter expect, and particularly when archaeologists demonstrate a decent amount of construction savvy in words, planning and deeds.) And, when public archaeology is rightly a buzzword, why don't we (from Project Managers and Consultants downwards) all start with the poor buggers who are doing the work alongside us on-site (from contract managers through machine drivers to ground workers.) You will be amazed how much this helps all of us!!!!
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - Dinosaur - 18th October 2012
poodash you're a star :face-approve:
Last Friday I was filling in for another PO and had an absolutely fascinating conversation with a couple of the diggers who usually work elsewhere but had volunteered that they liked working here cos it was pretty much the only place they'd worked where they were actually encouraged to look for archaeology, meaning they'd dug about twice as many real features as the initial strip and map had identified, plus testing loads of blobs that turned out to be b***ocks - we've handed the site back pretty sure we recorded whatever was there to be recorded and checked the rest. I was then treated to a lengthy catalogue of abuses of the system at other places theyd worked over the last couple of years, underpricing, corner-cutting, ignoring archaeology cos it would have made under-priced jobs go over budget, some shockingly minimalistic recording etc etc. Was fairly shocked when I found out who some of the units in question were, some of the usual culprits but one that I'd always thought did good work. Ended up feeling a bit disillusioned, and wondering why we bother busting a gut to do it properly
Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss - TLF - 18th October 2012
That's the unique ableit difficult character of commerical archaeology though I guess, it's a matter of balancing business with culture. People need to make a living and contractors have got deadlines, it's all well and good archaeologists knowing how important it is to check for archaeology, but I think there's still a massive problem in the conveying of said importance to everyone else.
Archaeology still needs to become much more approachable