Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I've been on a few jobs recently with this methodology, and I was wondering what the BAJR community thought of it. It seems to me to be a licence to make it up as you go along. The WSI is in effect really flexible, and the percentage of the archaeology that you dig depends on how much you find. The more you find, the less you dig. I always thought that you should decide on the methodology before you see the detail. For example, 'dig slots through all ditches'. Surely you ought to do this whether there are 5 or 20 on site.
Does anyone have experience of writing these up? I've been on sites where we were only allowed to dig less than half the relationships. How then do you phase and interpret the site? I appreciate that there are time constraints, but the method of deciding what to dig and what not to seems rather random to me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I have done a fair few of these myself (although in this neck of the woods they are generally called Strip, Map and Assess). I agree that you can end up not digging as much as if you go in saying that you will definately dig X% of linears etc. But, in my experience you do get a chance to talior what you dig to get the maximum information in the time (and budget) available.
I think this type of job came about with the relisation that we do not need to carpet bomb excavate ie excavate everything just cos its there, but should be seriousley thinking about what to dig and what possible questions a particular site can address.
This said you do need to be pretty on the ball with regard to some developers (a decent DC helps to) as you can get into a situation where they decide to move a development to avoid complex(therefore costly) arch - after it has been stripped - and assume that that area can be ignored.
I much prefer doing a S.M.A to a large trenching job as you do get a better feel for what is actually going on.[8D]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
I personally like the flexibility of stripping an area and making further decisions based on what is actually there, rather than having no idea what lies outside the trenches.
In my experience it has been used in preference to a re-active watching brief methodology, where much more has been found than was expected. Even a basic plan without excavation allows more to be known about a site than most watching briefs provide, so anything else is a bonus. I have also strangely done an urban "evaluation" within an area stripped to the first archaeological horizon. It allowed much better trench placement and better understanding of the site as a whole than a normal evaluation would. I am at present writing this up, so I may get back to you about specific problems. I think though, that it is going to write up like a normal evaluation report where adjacent areas have been subjected to an extremely thorough, if shallow, watching brief.
You are probably right in the "making it up" assesment, but I suspect that it is only ever used when the traditional methodology and planning system has broken down. I understand the turnaround time on planning applications has become ridiculously short and is causing problems like this.
The "making it up" part might not be a great methodology for statistical reasons (or others that i forgot once i left university  ), but it results in much better use of limited resources, and better information for the curators. It does however rely on a certain amount of trust in the contractor.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
I like them, but they do have to be set up properly, and can only really work on not very stratified sites. When used properly, gives you the opportunity to get better information more efficiently and can't really argue with that.
As Oxy says, you do have to be careful to remove the element of 'randomness.' In my opinion, you have to take a large initial sample to understand what you have before you then reduce the sample size. You will always dig more in the earlier phases of the site as you are staring fresh there and have nothing to build upon - reflexive digging. Once you've established that, you should dig intersections and intercutting features first, and then those which will have maximum data. Waterlogged pits/holes, things with burning, things that give a signal with a metal detector (not for treasure, but hammerscale, industiral debitage, etc). And so on. Also must have spot dates done on site.
What I'm not convinced about, and am still weighing up in my head, is the workability of initiating a SMS without a prior evaluation. Have seen it done but think it leaves the question of resourcing too impossible. What do you think? Also can't then do preservation in situ.
Good book along these lines is Evaluation of archaeological decision making processes and sampling strategies by Gill Hey and Mark Lacey, Planarch, OAU, 2001. Makes you think - and gives you something to quote from (if it's written down it must be true) when pushing for a 8% evaluation.
ML
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Good points mercenary and mole. I agree that is much more satisfactory than a load of disconnected eval trenches, or a watching brief. Being only a lowly digger, i'm not really privy to the decisions that get made. In fact I'm lucky if the county mounty even looks at me, let alone speaks.
I only really bring it up as I'm dealing with the plans for a vast, complex multi phase ditch system, and wondering if I'm going to get any of my questions answered. Some but not all, I suppose.
I also ask because the WSIs that I've seen say things like 'determine the character and extent of the archaeology'. It seems to me that getting something on plan is not the same as determining its 'character'. Better something than nothing, I suppose.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Oxbeast wrote:
Quote:quote:Better something than nothing, I suppose
That in a nutshell is modern archaeology. Took me ages to come to terms with it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
ML,
The question of resourcing strip and record projects is not limited to ones without prior evaluation. The threat of legal action potentially bankrupting my employer has only just receded following a massive project, largely strip and record, where the eval was done so badly that it indicated perhaps a fifth of the total archaeology on the site, and only portions of the arch even in the trenches.} 
My feeling is that developers could be given the choice between traditional evaluation trenching followed by mitigation, or strip and record where everything is dealt with. It's a gamble for them, but may be the quickest option if they are short of time.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Hi Merc
To be honest, I'm surprised that more developers haven't tried to litigate over botched or not quite as informative as they could be evals. Or sites that drag on.
The nasty about going straight into strip, map and sample is that there is little room for manouever if something needs to be preserved. Also, you then could never fall back on the 'unexpected discovery' and apply for some government money (although that's extremely unlikely to be forthcoming in a PPG16 site anyway).
That's one hell of a gamble - I'd want something in writing from them stating they know the full implications of what they're getting into, and the planning authority standing right behind me. If they found a juicy Roman cemetery, for example, that could bankrupt the development.
Do you not think that jumping straight in is against PPG16?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Quote:quote o you not think that jumping straight in is against PPG16?
Yes I do. But all sorts of the ways we are forced to do things these days seem to be. Is it not currently under review anyway, and govt. is probably trying to find ways like this to speed up the planning process?
As for preservation in-situ, I've ranted on enough about that. I'm struggling to think of the kind of archaeology in a rural site that would absolutely have to be preserved in-situ. The concept only ever seems to be applied to save developer's money, not just on the grounds of the importance of the archaeology. Cemeteries can be and are cleared archaeologically. They cost a bit, but not much compared with other aspects of development. This would simply be factored into the decision on the viability of the development as these things always are, but with more information to go on.
Lastly I naively assume that planning departments DO stand behind their archaeologists, but experience is teaching me otherwise.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
When SMS first appeared it was used in situations where preservation in situ was almost impossible to achieve under any circumstances - mainly new railways and heavily constrained road schemes, (?Terminal 5). In these situations the use of extensive prior evaluation could not be used to identify sites that would require preservation in situ sites, and any evaluation was primarily aimed at reaching a position whereby the cost of dealing with the archaeology could be reasonably assessed. It seemd as though there was a pay-off here - if the developer could not achieve preservation in situ, then it would be necessary to expose and record as much as possible of what was actually there. The advantage form an archaeological perspective is that whole site plans could be recovered, and there would be no requirment for a watching breif as the main contractor let rip with a load of 50 ton 360s and box scrapers.
On the occasions when I was involved in SMS at that time, EH were quite opposed to it as they saw it as lying outside procedures identified in PPG16.
As it has spread into other types of development site, it has evolved into a hybrid beast - half evaluation, half excavation. In some circumstances it should be seen as a useful tool in the armoury of methodologies - eg road schemes where there has been no right of access for adequate evaluation - and still retains advantages over a watching brief in terms of final phase mitigation. However, it should not be used as an alternative to an adequate pre-determination evaluation where this is feasible and appropriate - we are still working to PPG16, whatever our individual views, and should remember the presumption of preservation in situ for remains of national significance. If evaluation is inadequate or non-existent, then going into a consented scheme with SMS as the mitigation assumes that the development will go ahead as planned regardlees of the nature and significance of the archaeological remains encountered.
SMS is also more difficlt to cost from a contractors point of view - going in with a capped sum hardly puts us (the profession) in a position to ensure that the job is going to be done properly.
Beamo
|
