+- 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: DBA, method statement, project design (/showthread.php?tid=370)
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 1st February 2007
I did a sixty meter, 1 metre deep, watching brief of a drainage trench for a bog from inside the church tower- 13th century- through said tower to a septic tank (3.5 metres deep by 4.5metres wide after the side collapsed in!) in the church yard a few months back (have only been paid after the grave digger miss read my day rate for a price I had to give a 75% discount as a result to stop all the bleating heart). Anyway when I got the job with my incredibly competitive price I brought up the said document and said to all and sundry âit says evaluation on the tinâ and got from EH âyes it does but so whatâ and from Cof E no it doesnât and from the locals âwhat documentâ. I would say another example of pension grabbers and glebe grabbers who like to ply the archaeology âwordâ and then sod off and count their pensions.
This is the quote that caught my eye
â⢠Human remains should always be treated with dignity and respect. a If burial grounds, or areas within burial grounds, which may contain interments more than 100 years old, have to be disturbed â whether for MINOR BUILDING or larger scale development â to a depth that is likely to disturb burials, the relevant areas should be archaeologically evaluated. Any subsequent exhumations should be monitored, and if necessary carried out, by archaeologists.â
The word evaluation presumably for all you consultants means divining rods or âI have to say I dont agree with all of the documentâ. Call it toilet paper myself
DBA, method statement, project design - beamo - 1st February 2007
Unitof1
As far as I can see you talked to EH and to the Church and to the 'locals' and no-one agreed that evaluation was necessary regardless of the advice given in the Church of England/English Heritage document. Maybe you were right and they were all wrong - however you conclude by having a go at consultants - why? Did you talk to any - were any involved in this matter?
As a consultant I have dealt with a number of similar schemes to the ones that you describe, and have referred to the advice given in the Church of England/English Heritage document since it was introduced. Evaluation has been in the form of trial trenches or test pits depending on the nature of the proposed works and the available access. Evaluation here means just the same as it does anywhere else - use whatever means are available to get more information about what is below the ground and how to mitigate impacts on it.
Beamo
DBA, method statement, project design - Cautionary Tale - 1st February 2007
The only thing I would add is if no burials were disturbed during your watching brief (and there were good grounds for predicting this before going on site), then it is likely that the letter of the guidance was followed (whether this makes it good practice or not is down to how - and by whom - this is applied).
Going back to the thread, was a DBA undertaken which influenced this course of action either by indicating the area was unlikely to contain burials or by giving definative depths above which works could safely be completed I wonder? :face-huh:
I maiali sono alimentati e aspettano per volare
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 1st February 2007
No burials were disturbed but the only grounds for this was luck- there was no way that anybody could have said there were no bodies -there was no recent disturbance. What I am trying to get at is that there is this document that says âarchaeologically evaluatedâ that has been put together by a bunch of people (It apparently had a launch) and it makes absolutely no difference to what we do and have done in the past on numerous jobs in churches.. as in so what was the point of the document
The reason that I talked to all these people was because of the blinking document throwing the evaluation for minor development around when the job came to me as an archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation condition and me not wanting to end up with several hundred bones and everybody going shouldnât you have done an âevaluationâ in little winy voices or didnt you know about this âdocumentâ.
On the having a go at consultants I call it a hobby particularly when their only job is to reduce the amount of digging to be done and yet make out that they achieve some remarkable âarchaeologicalâ result- The use of the âarchaeologically evaluatedâ has consultant speak all over it
I did hit a peat deposit 2 metres down which I would have called a result if I could have âevaluatedâ it- instead it got âwatchedâ after I pointed out that for me to go beyond 1.2 metres I would prefer a step out and increase the chances of.....
The doc is not very decisive about bodies going off into baulk either
Whatâs the point of it- EH speaking on behalf of archaeologists there should be a law against it
-basically stick with the faculty or burial licence if you go near bodies
I am not sure about dumping in churches either
DBA, method statement, project design - m300572 - 1st February 2007
"I am not sure about dumping in churches either"
Do you mean in the faecal sense, your earlier post mentioning the installation of a toilet and septic tank.
Long tradition of at least urinating in churches - in the 16th and 17th century one onof the places that the saltpetre men dug up earth to extract saltpetre was church floors where "women pissed atte their seats"
presumably during long services. the nitrate was the component used (privies and doocots and hen houses were also favoured targets for the satpetre men)
DBA, method statement, project design - drpeterwardle - 1st February 2007
I have to say I am finding it difficult to reply to Unit of 1 and stay within the AUP.
I suggest Unit of 1 ought to do some more reading about Churchyard Archaeology.
Best practice for the situation he describes is as follows:
"(b) Trial pits for evaluation should only be required in
cases where there is archaeological potential other than
previous unspecified burying. Examples are where
previous exposures have shown that burials are likely to
be encountered, the site of demolished chapels or
monastic ranges, or where the configuration of the
stonework at the point of connection into the church has
potential sensitivity or raises unresolved questions."
Might I suggest that Unitof1 also pays some attention to contractual matters.
Peter
DBA, method statement, project design - Unitof1 - 1st February 2007
I am forever learning things here pal
So the 2005, 52 page document is originally a 2 page appendix in the 2004, 21 page document which it does not reference. I thought that it was a very lopsided affair
As the introduction says (2004)
âIt aims to clarify best practice without introducing any new requirements. It seeks to support the regulatory authorities by indicating what information and action is expected from parishes and cathedrals while they devise and commission works.â
(written by the regulatory authorities no doubt)
And in the bog section D2 it says
âAssertions by proposers of schemes that pre-consent evaluation is impossible should always be examined critically, and a distinction made between cases where this is true and those where proper procedures for assessing environmental impacts are being ignored.â
Well my instincts were there and I gave it a shot. it was post consent by the time I got it...
When I was kid I was taught by nuns. Their punishment for stopping me talking was to put chilli peppers on my tongue.
off to follow this
âCare of Cathedrals Measure (1990) it became a statutory requirement for each cathedral to have a consultant archaeologistâ please not noooooo consultant archaeologist defined by law
âarchaeological consultant" means a person who possesses such qualifications and expertise in archaeological matters as the Commission may recognise as appropriate;
and I presume the Commission is Cathedrals Fabric Commission -so this is the birthing position. I have an inkling that a lot of consultant archaeologists are not born this way. Must make them illegitimate.
M theres a bit of a difference between number 1s and number 2s
DBA, method statement, project design - drpeterwardle - 1st February 2007
I have to say Unit of 1 last post is on or over the AUP.
Each cathedral and each diocese have their own archaeological advisors or consultant.
The professional association is called The association of diocesan and cathedral archaeologists.
This is a good thing.
I not going to bore Bajr with the CofE version of the planning system.
Unit of 1 if you wish to discuss this please start a new thread.
Peter
DBA, method statement, project design - beamo - 2nd February 2007
Unitof1
Thanks for the reply. I still do not see what role consultants played in the example that you gave. Did consultants write the Church of England/English Heritage document ? - I must have missed that bit.
I could try to explain to you that consultants (on the whole) do not see their role as 'to reduce the amount of digging to be done' but I don't really think that you want to listen to that argument and well life's too short and I've got better things to do today.
Beamo
DBA, method statement, project design - m300572 - 2nd February 2007
"M theres a bit of a difference between number 1s and number 2s"
Granted - is your objection to "dumping" in a church archaeological or theological