Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th November 2005, 06:17 PM
Quote:quote:Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course. (It is specified in the brief for one region in which I work)
Shouldn't all curator's insist on this? If it is important (which I agree it is).
Quote:quote:If it is an evaluation report, then it is principally aimed at the curator, to help them advise the planning authority on how to treat a planning application. However, clients or their consultants and scheme designers will also have a genuine interest in the content, particularly if it is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment project, as they may need to take it into account in some of their decision-making. In addition, it will eventually appear as a public document in the SMR.
If is is the report on a piece of mitigation work (i.e. following a planning condition or equivalent), but is not to be published, then the curator will indeed use it to check that the work has been done properly. However, that is not its primary purpose - what it is meant for is to put the information into the public domain through availability in the SMR.
If it is a publication report, then its principal audience is all the subscribers to the journal or library users. The journal editor will presumably have their own ideas about what should be in appendices etc.
I agree with all of this, however almost all of my work these days is evaluation work, usually followed by a watching brief mitigation. Usually with negligible results, so hardly worth putting into the public domain.
The last evaluation I did that led to an excavation was in London, where the mitigation strategies seemed very different. The evil concept of preservation in-situ is rampant where I now ply my trade.
(Sadly publications to my name remain nil) 
PS. Sorry for dragging this off topic.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th November 2005, 06:37 PM
Not a criticism just a comment...
Quote:quote:almost all of my work these days is evaluation work, usually followed by a watching brief mitigation. Usually with negligible results, so hardly worth putting into the public domain
Negative results are still results. It is just as important to know where things aren't as where they are. So, still worth putting in the public domain (although I agree that a report saying 'nothing was found' does not make exciting reading).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th November 2005, 06:49 PM
Quote:quote:Negative results are still results. It is just as important to know where things aren't as where they are. So, still worth putting in the public domain (although I agree that a report saying 'nothing was found' does not make exciting reading).
Sure, if they are really negative.
On these sites though a more accurate description would be 'lots of archaeology there (see evaluation report) but nothing more learnt from watching brief because the brief specified that formation levels would be above the good stuff. The developers have been ever so good and promised that they'll follow it to the letter without supervision, or maybe phone us if they have to dig massive trenches because the piles are hitting obstructions, or at least let us look at the upcast from the piles to see what kind of preserved wooden structures are getting destroyed'
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th November 2005, 07:11 PM
Sorry, as this is a forum for solutions, my solution to the problem outlined in the previous post would be: No more preservation in-situ cop-outs from curators. Simple really. 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
15th November 2005, 11:18 AM
I dont quite follow that preservation in situ is a cop out; it should be the ideal. You are saying is that the evaluation results showed that although significant archaeological deposits were present on the site they occured below the projected impact of the development. Therefore a watching brief was put on as a condition;seems reasonable. The conditions were based on the results of your evaluation report.If its the piling which is destroying a site thats a different issue.
The impact of piling is always a tricky one; personally I would say that, apart from the impact of the pile itself, if the site contains waterlogged organic material piling may well change the chemical makeup of the environment which has sustained those deposits by impacting the layers below and also wicking water down from the surface and therefore what you will get is a slow deteriation rather than preservation in situ, but this is incredibly difficult to prove because it all depends on the geomorphology of the the particular site and the type of pile proposed.You would also have to monitor the deteriation rate but by doing so increase the impact on the archaeology. I understand that York are doing interesting work in this field but as it stands its damn difficult to come up with a reasonable argument.
If the main problem you have with this site is that the deveoper will wait until the archaeologists are off site and then trench, the watching brief condition should probably go along the lines of "all intrusive groundworks" in which case if the developer trenches without you in attendance he will be in breach of his permission, if you are in attendance then you would presumably stop the machine when you reached significant archaeology (waterlogged wood)and call out the curator.
I dont mean to suggest that you are wrong, I just wanted to explore the context in which a site could get trashed and the mechansims which exist to prevent it. The sad truth is that sites do get trashed under our current system.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
15th November 2005, 12:28 PM
All that you say is the way it is supposed to work. Leaving aside the piling question for the moment, which I see as incredibly destructive; at issue is the in-situ preservation of archaeology after I leave the site.
Building designs seem to change frequently and with little respect for the impact on the archaeology. If it changes while the WB is going on there is a chance that something can be done. (the curator can be notified) More often it happens once the WB has been ostensibly completed, once the planning permission has gone through.
I recently went by a site where I'd done an eval followed by preservation in-situ mitigation and a WB. The building was about three times the original design and extended into an area where the archaeological deposits were much closer to the surface. Was I notified that the new build threatened in-situ preservation? No. Was the curator? I don't know. Was the planning condition broken?
As for piling, it is seldom limited to the destruction of deposits in the pile positions. (Usually specified as no more than 5% where I work) As you say water tables are affected, but also a wide area around screw piles is churned up, thus affecting possibly (at a guess) 10 times the area depending on geology. I also know that if the pile hits masonry or even preserved timbers, that the obstruction needs to be removed by machine. This too creates a much wider zone of destruction around the pile. Sometimes this can be recorded if the WB is still on. Where I now work piling is not usually covered by the WB so the true extent of the damage is not known.
That's why I think it's a con.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
15th November 2005, 01:40 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by mercenary
Building designs seem to change frequently and with little respect for the impact on the archaeology. If it changes while the WB is going on there is a chance that something can be done. (the curator can be notified) More often it happens once the WB has been ostensibly completed, once the planning permission has gone through.
I think personally this sort of situation highlights a flaw in the system, not neccessariliy the practice of in situ. Naughty developers need checking up on, whether it be archaeology or any other condition they have to deal with. In instances where planning permission has gone through and the WB completed, perhaps the flaw was allowing the WB to cease (I'm not passing judgement on any particular case/person here, just the principle off early bath WBs) without any further checks. After all, building inspectors show up to confirm they're happy with trenching for footings, why shouldn't archaeologists turn up to OK trenches like that even after the formal 'recording and observation'WB is over. It would be a relatively small expense (considering that it wouldn't be a formal WB, just a confirmation visit) and we could all sleep easy.
(I really have worked in the field)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
15th November 2005, 01:52 PM
We do seem to have strayed a long way from the original topic, but an interesting discussion just the same.
Personally, I would see monitoring the building contractor to ensure compliance after the end of the WB as part of a curator's role in principle, but as they are usually too under-resourced to monitor ongoing archaeological fieldwork properly I know they couldn't do it.
An alternative would be to cover it in WB specs, by including an ongoing liaison role after the end of the WB itself, involving (say) a weekly site meeting/inspection until after all ground-disturbing works are complete. That way, any design changes or unauthorised work could be identified and the developer/construction firm would know they were under continuing oversight.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
15th November 2005, 02:54 PM
Quote:quote:An alternative would be to cover it in WB specs, by including an ongoing liaison role after the end of the WB itself, involving (say) a weekly site meeting/inspection until after all ground-disturbing works are complete. That way, any design changes or unauthorised work could be identified and the developer/construction firm would know they were under continuing oversight.
1man1desk
Something like that would make sense. Just the suggestion that the archaeological monitoring didn't end when the watching brief was over. 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
15th November 2005, 03:18 PM
ok I see where you are comming from, I guess things are different in different counties; as far as my patch is concerned I always put a WB condition on that covers all intrusive groundworks; it may be that this is overkill on some sites but its in place if I need it. When I monitor I speak to the developers agents and construction teams and make sure I understand the scope of works, added to that I have my fellow council officials reporting back to me, building control, highways and enforcement who will all contact me if they see a breach of condition. Building designs should not alter after detailed planning consent is given, certainly not extending into new areas.
|
