Original standards and guidences for field archaeologists

[Marc Berger]

I have been looking unsuccessfully for the original wording for the Evaluation standard and guidance from 1994, when cifa was known as the Institute for field archaeologists. I don't think that there were any earlier versions than 1994 but I would be interested in any if there are.

Thanks in advance

[Dinosaur]

'fraid they keep binning old stuff here, even the useful stuff

[Marc Berger]

Well I suppose it's a form of dissemination. Might have to wait until the bin is excavated. For some odd reason I had dim memmory of a planarch.org and a library. But they don't seem to exist any more. Keep on digging

[beamo]

Marc

This S&G was formally adopted in October 1994 so that should be the first approved text - no doubt there were earlier drafts which were consulted on but this was more than 20 years ago and I cannot think where any of these earlier drafts may have survived.

Beamo

[Marc Berger]

The lastest abortion has something called strip, map and sample/record as an evaluation technique which I take as the ultimate proof that the ifa are run by curators on public servant salaries who don't dig. It seems to be a technique which isn't excavation or rather it does not need an evaluation because it is an evaluation although it doesn't seem too lead to excavation or does it. I can be bothered to work it out. It appears to be a solution to Elms Farm. I though the whole point of elms farm was to take the piss out of Public servants doing archaeology. I have got a few that I am supposed to do and I am going to enjoy giving them a good kicking. Oh I wish I could use funny language.

[Dinosaur]

Strip, map and record is an excavation methodology, not evaluation, normally only employed on large projects and has been entirely standard for years - just a case of stripping the site, seeing what there is and then agreeing what/how much to actually dig. Not actually a lot different from 'the old way', just more faffing about, interference and site meetings to waste time and money and pad out consultant/curator expenses

[Marc Berger]

I agree Dino I have worked on quarry sites which had been evaluated with trenches and then in effect a watching brief was put on the topsoil strip in areas where the evaluation either showed no or a little archaeological potential with the watching brief caveat that if there was insufficient contingency for any great discovery that the strip would come to an end in that area and we would go back to the drawing board and carry on elsewhere.

But may I refer you to http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/defa...tion_1.pdf

section 3.3.11 2 v. just before probing which is possibly something that is done underwater

And they produced this version after NPPF was about.

[Dinosaur]

Oh yes, how strange! Had never considered recommending stripping the whole site in advance as an evaluation methodology. Downside, of course, is the jungle that would then obscure all the archaeology while the development proposal went through the planning process...good thing only cIFA members have to put up with that sort of stupidity }

Aren't land archaeologists allowed to excavate with explosives then? Oops...

[Dinosaur]

...actually prop-wash was a technique we hadn't considered on a couple of current sites, hmmmm :face-thinks:

[Sith]

I have just found a paper copy (which has somehow escaped recycling) of the first revision from 1999. It does not contain the list of non-destructive and destructive methods that have appeared in recent editions. Is that any help?

I have to ask, however, why you're interested in 20 year old guidance which has been officially superseded by something (based on the above observation) that is at least superficially more detailed.