Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th February 2007, 10:42 AM
Peter you are right about the PNAG or Permitted Agricultural Development, however, there are a number of other factors I suppose we would have to take into consideration. This, I suppose can show that every site must be looked at for its own merit...
in some cases, you are right, that the same 'rules' don't apply to farmers than those that developers must jump to. (discuss!)
However If there is an Agri- Enviro scheme in the farm - then there is an agreement of care, and beyond that a bowl barrow will contain human remains -
What we would need to know is what state of preservation the barrow is in, Troll mentions an existing kerb, so thats looking good so far, though it also sounds like the barrow was unknown before.
To do a DBA and eval for 2 k... fine... I would go for that... but that would have to lead onto a serious mitigation... starting with the... do you actually have to build there. In Scotland where things are diferent (obviously) Historic SCotland can't realy get involved if it is part of a live application - unless it is site of national importance. Is that the same in England?
If a pipe line is going through.. then ... ah...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th February 2007, 11:07 AM
Peter you are right about the PNAG or Permitted Agricultural Development, however, there are a number of other factors I suppose we would have to take into consideration. This, I suppose can show that every site must be looked at for its own merit...
in some cases, you are right, that the same 'rules' don't apply to farmers than those that developers must jump to. (discuss!)
However If there is an Agri- Enviro scheme in the farm - then there is an agreement of care, and beyond that a bowl barrow will contain human remains -
What we would need to know is what state of preservation the barrow is in, Troll mentions an existing kerb, so thats looking good so far, though it also sounds like the barrow was unknown before.
To do a DBA and eval for 2 k... fine... I would go for that... but that would have to lead onto a serious mitigation... starting with the... do you actually have to build there. In Scotland where things are diferent (obviously) Historic SCotland can't realy get involved if it is part of a live application - unless it is site of national importance. Is that the same in England?
If a pipe line is going through.. then ... ah...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th February 2007, 11:17 AM
At this stage I still say the situation is too undefined to come up with a detailed costing.
The following info is needed which a desk top and a topo survey should sort out.
The size and shape of the monument
What work has been done on it before - it may well have been excavated in the C19.
What is the preservation state? This can be found out by looking at similar monument
What is the geology?
After this the sampling strategy for the mound and the ditch needs to be defined.
For pipelines, roads and airports an EIA must have been done and thus the monument should have been recognised. It not unknown for upstanding monuments of this size to have been missed in an assessment (I have worked on one example many years ago)it should have been found on the walk over survey or on the aps.
It should also have been found during the evaluation stage.
Realistically the position of a run way cannot be changed and if you do you may zap even more archaeological remains.
Pipeline routes are rarely that fixed so there is potential to go around or under the monument. It will depend at what stage the process is reached.
For roads any re-routing after the route is fixed is difficult.
At 3m high it is starting to tick boxes on importance. I would suggest therefor for EH to be involve as grant funding could be possible. For strategic developments then I expect EH to be involved to a greater or lesser degree.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
4th February 2007, 11:48 AM
Thank you to all who have taken the time to respond.As I said earlier, I hope to come up with a generally agreed methodology for this hypothetical exercise.The costings-whilst important of course, is not really the main focus of this game.As Dr Wardle has asked for further details, I have come up with a few off the top of my head...I base some of these details upon work I am aware of that took place in another time and place...
1.Size and shape...17metres and round (a type 4 to six bowl barrow),height of max 3m taken from bottom of ditch to top of central mound in profile
2.Previous work...one small shaft sunk just off centre in the antiquarian days (like most barows countrywide!)
3.Preservation...intact,no plough damage,kerb intact all the way around,ditch untouched, central mound intact
4.Geology...lithic-rich glacial till over clay
Using a roughly similar model to that seen in Wessex/Cranborne, lets say that within one kilometre of this barrow, a neolithic example was excavated in the 20th Century and found to contain a log-lined "chamber". Again, in sync with say-the south Dorset ridgeway, this barrow occupies a prominant position overlooking a watercourse. I do accept that as Dr Wardle points out, it would be difficult to arrive at a decent methodology without concrete detail so, here are some more hypotheticals.....for arguments sake, lets say that the barrow is in the firing line of a new road that will snake its way along the prominant elevation occupied by the barrow.:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
4th February 2007, 03:18 PM
I'll do the geophysics for nothing.......
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th February 2007, 05:57 PM
How archaeological: A basic premis is "Cost is irrelevent in this scenario" and so somebody offers to do the work for free.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th February 2007, 07:47 PM
But I feel that as a site there is often more than meets the eye...
Even to the point where the excavation is an add on, and is better than nothing which can happen quite often... a poor Project scheme perhaps? An unexpected find? A permitted development where no requirement for archaeology is needed? Lots of things can happen.
thats why unlimited budget and time can be unrealistic.. it can be often the best that can happen
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
4th February 2007, 10:00 PM
Troll - great question this one - congratulations.
I would certainly agree with Dr Peter that this type of site should have been located by the EIA if it were a road / runway / pipeline etc. If road or pipeline it should have been avoided through redesign at this stage, perhaps not possible for runway although pres. in situ might be possible through burial after consideration of the topography and the cut/fill balance.
With a pipeline it would still be possible to avoid the monument through a minor rerouting during construction, especially if an archaeologist had been working with the advance fencing crews and picked it up early on. This is not usually possible with a road as any route amendments could have major affects on horizontal and vertical alignment.
I like your concern re. [i]For example, if I was a project manager of a commercial unit and tendered on the basis of say, four diggers/one supervisor and completion in four weeks-how would you as curator/consultant react/respond?[/i] as it throws up an interesting issue. As a consultant I would fall about laughing and throw the tender response in the no chance saloon pile - it would be totally irresponsible of me to advise a client to appoint a contractor at a price that clearly cannot achieve the desired result. The client would be left in the position of having to either pay the contractor loads of additional money, or get rid of them and get another contractor in - either way not satisfactory and would not reflect well on my skills as a consultant.
However the more interesting part of the question is how curators would respond. I have had several instances where curators have asked to see details of the size of proposed dig team and duration of the fieldwork, and where I have advised them that this is none of their business - as long as the work is carried out in line with the agreed WSI it is nothing to do with the curator how long this takes or how many people are required. It may be OK to provide names and CVs of senior staff to demonstrate that they are suitable, but again this ought to be seen as compliance with the WSI. Whether or not the proposed team and duration of works is adequate is my call, and will be taken into account in my advice to clients on which contractor to appoint. I would always back my judgement on this issue against that of curators, especially those who I know to have limited field experience. This stance has led to a number of arguments with curators, but I am still not convinced that they have any role in determining the size of the field team of the duration of fieldwork. The example we are using here is an easy one and virtually all archaeologists will spot that the proposed team was wholly inadequate, but most examples would not be so clear-cut.
Troll - I will put my contractors hat on and price up this job for you when I have a spare half-hour.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
5th February 2007, 10:00 AM
Whether money is no object or not, it is always a material consideration - for everyone. I'd do my best with any advice I gave to persuade the farmer that putting his building somewhere else would be more cost-effective, less time consuming, and less hassle, although if that didn't get me anywhere I'm with Mr. Hosty - I'd recommend refusal of the application. It's an "easily explainable"* site so there shouldn't be any surprises or difficulties for the planners in accepting this. If it were a previously known site, I'd also consult English Heritage to see why the assessment programme had either missed it previously, or decided against Scheduling.
(* By "easily explainable", I mean it's easier for non-archaeologists to grasp as being a site of significance. This type of scenario has come up recently where I work, but in relation to 19th Century, WWII and Cold War monuments. These are a lot harder to defend to the unenlightened.)
If digging was the only option, and this is mainly to supplement what Beamo said, I would make sure the WSI was appropriate, but I wouldn't ask for details of the digging team - apart from almost certainly requesting the name of the Project Officer in charge on site to satisfy the requirement that the work was being carried out by someone suitably qualified. My role would be to ensure the WSI was completed as I had agreed.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
5th February 2007, 01:27 PM
Quote:quote:How would your views alter if the barrow found itself on the route of say, a pipeline, road scheme or even a new airport runway?
If the site is deemed to be of national importance (irrespective of scheduled status or not), I would be recommending that it should be preserved, and that the route of the pipeline or road should move - unless this causes some other, even greater, environmental impact (not necessarily just archaeological). Not sure about what I would do if it was a runway - never dealt with one of those.
If there's an active badger sett actually in the mound, as somebody suggested, I would assume that the archaeology is much less well preserved than otherwise. I would question any suggestion that it is nationally important. If the development is a pipeline, I would still recommend preservation in situ. For a road, I would look for realignment, but I would also consider full excavation as mitigation - after the badgers have been relocated according to appropriate guidelines, under a suitable licence (this is common practice where badger setts are found).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
|
