DBA, method statement, project design

[drpeterwardle]

I am logging onto BAJR for some light relief at 2AM after a very hard week. I agree with David.

I have been advising developers etc for 19 years, very scarry, I have written of the order of 250 DBA and Cobras. I was the first archaeologist to actually work for a non government developer (on secondment).

I am told that I was the first person to argue the case for PPG16 at Public Inquiry and I was certainly involved in lobbying from it.

I think I can therefore speak with some experience about these matters and what PPG 16 means.

Unit of one says

"horror- what happens:..... when the developer is a cynical archaeologist...."

Not the kind of thing you are suggesting.

It is not for me to lock this topic but I am tempted. Over to you David.

Dr Peter
Where am I
what motorway am I on

David I am busy. I have to do a watching brief later today and tomorrow and meanwhile I await a response from Dell. Will look at bajr when I can. cheers

[Unitof1]

“have been advising developers etc for 19 years, very scarry, I have written of the order of 250 DBA and Cobras. I was the first archaeologist to actually work for a non government developer (on secondment).

I am told that I was the first person to argue the case for PPG16 at Public Inquiry and I was certainly involved in lobbying from it.”

At these public inquiries which side were you arguing/employed by/for? I do not intend any offence it just that I see a lot of archaeologists attempting the neutral position, doing the best by archaeology whato, but are in the employ of the development and I find, maybe due to my nature, it very hard to take

[BAJR Host]

Morning Peter

Must say I am off as well ... survey (on Saturday) of field monuments which is nice... but I am fairly offended by the incoherent arguements of Unit. To lock the thread would be a shame. To remove Unit may be a more sensible option. I do not like to stifle debate.. but this individual has publicly stated they would have a quiet word with the client and suggest that even if they feel there might be archaeology on the site they would advise the client (potential) that they keep quiet just in case the overworked understaffed and underresourced DC archaeologist misses the potential for that site... and follows up by a 'hey... I would prefer the DC to put on conditions.. after all I would get to work on the site then..." Tell you what Unit... let the DC know about anything you feel might be there... at that point you are actually acting in the clients best interest.. the last thing they want is the programme of construction work halted by unexpected archaeology (or not so unexpected if you already knew about it)

How many sites have you knowingly allowed to be developed without any archaeolgoical works? How many sites that should have had excavation but you kept quiet and just let them get bulldozed?

I have to remind you of the IFA Code of Conduct. One that applies to all of us... whether IFA or not... whether you believe in the IFA or not....
Code of Conduct
1.6
(2)they do not enter into any contract or agreement whereby archaeological or curatorial standards may be compromised in deference to commercial interests

Code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology

2 An archaeologist’s primary responsibility is to safeguard the archaeological resource and to seek preservation in situ as the first option. All archaeologists thus have a curatorial role whether, in respect of any particular arrangements for preservation or recording, they act as curator1, contractor or consultant.

3 An archaeologist shall not put at risk any archaeological resource purely for commercial reward.

Seems that you fail in these - It could be argued that others do. But none have actually said it openly and about themselves.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

Your call David. Barring should befor a set period of time.

My enquiry/court experience.

LPAs side - setting of a hillfort feb 1990. Appeal dismissed.
loCal residents side - lack of info appeal dismissed

(I will add the complete list later).

A true expert witness in court has a duty to the court and has to be impartial.

Peter

[BAJR Host]

I agree a bar will be a time limit one..

However before imposing a bar.. I would prefer to hear a reason for Units behaviour.
(one that makes clear sense)

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

Below is an edited version of Unit of 1

"I know of a recent example of dba where my ordnance survey map had Anglo-Saxon Cemetery written on it that the consultant missed.

They also failed to notice some big landscape features.

That particular scheme went through four different units, six if you include the geophysics and the consultants archaeologists (seven- I forgot the curators).

They had different units doing the fieldwalking (upset the locals) evaluations (in the wrong place) and the excavations. And as for the disparate bits of paper more paper maze than trail. I would challenge anybody to find them let alone put them together."

Have deciphered Unitof1 messages there are some points to consider such as how PPG 16 has evolved and if in fact this is acceptable

As for the notion of telling a client to wait and see if a condition is imposed. This is unethical if a site is present or it is a very large area or there is other good reason to believe an important site exists.

I for one cannot be bothered answering or editing this vitriol

Peter

[BAJR Host]

Neither can I Pete... neither can I...

we (and others I suspect) have better things to do.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Unitof1]

“option. I do not like to stifle debate. but this individual has publicly stated they would have a quiet word with the client and suggest that even if they FEEL there might be archaeology on the site they would advise the client (potential) that they keep quiet just in case the overworked understaffed and underresourced DC archaeologist misses the potential for that site...”

you putting words in my mouth- where did I say there was archaeology on the site

I think that I have consistently argued that I want to do an evaluation trench before I Feel that there might be archaeology in a location. I see evaluation by trench as the only archaeological method. I have argued that evaluation trenches were considered in ppg16 to be inexpensive. I think that this inexpensiveness is in relation to the archaeology rather than the cost of the development. I think that there is a pervading insistence that relates costs to the development. We have the situation throughout curatorial practice that where there is lack of evidence that archaeological conditions (evaluations) are not put on- on the grounds that they cannot be justified, the exception and only sometimes is for very large developments and then in a very consultationary way. We have claims on this thread that you can do less evaluation and find more archaeology. I dont know how. In as much that you have been wound up by a discussion about dbas. In my experience all the sites that I have excavated or been on which were excavated had dbas and it was because it was obvious, in the majority of situations, that there would be an excavation. I dont have much experience about dbas that did not go to excavation. Our friend in Scotland says he asks for dbas because he is overworked and understaffed?

Now it seems to me that we have the situation where you are saying to me that every time a potential client comes to me I insist that they pay me to undertake a dba presumably as a dba is the way to inform the overworked understaffed curator who I want to hear say evaluate. I cant help but feel that I would be exploiting the clients-possibly the curators as well?. I presume that the curators are over worked because they are doing a lot of considering and worrying and staring at archive wondering and umming and pontificating when a predetermination evaluation should be the automatic expectation. should I try and get a client to undertake a predetermination evaluation without a curatorial request...what happens when curator points out that my trenches were unnecessary, what happens when the client wants the information to be confidential. Will I get kicked by the preservation in situ mob. Evaluations need curatorial insistence and pre- consent

I have tried to point out that evaluations are the best route for better employment at the digger level. I think more evaluations will lead to more excavations and cheaper and more efficiently run with a more consistent experienced staff, particularly at a local level. I would rather have an evaluation than a dba to cost an excavation. I want to replace all watching briefs with evaluations. I think that watching briefs should only be imposed when the evidence of evaluations is not conclusive. I feel that this evaluation level of digger activity is currently occupied by the “concept” of consultation (such as the very situation that I have outlined in client relations to which you have taken offence but are you upset because diggers have lost out or because you are in some cosy curatorial/archaeological mutual appreciation society). I think that most of the interpretations of peepeeG on bajr water down evaluation and as a result excavation to the point that it is barely visible or significant in what the vast majority of “archaeologists” do. I think that evaluation should be the bread and butter of the digging world. Not something that is only done before the obvious excavation when in all likelihood it will be argued that evaluation is not worth doing because the area is going to be opened up anyway- and it will make a mess as has also been argued...

“How many sites have you knowingly allowed to be developed without any archaeological works? How many sites that should have had excavation but you kept quiet and just let them get bulldozed?” none -I get paid to watch them be bulldozed it just that I not really sure that watching bulldozers is archaeology. You end up with the niggling feeling that you have been turned into the systems hamster. More a question for curators I think

around my area the vast majority of planning approvals don’t get any form of condition and they are dominated by watching briefs. I dont know of a single digger who lives within forty kilometres an area of approximately 2500 square km house prices have risen four fold in under ten years-the development boom is full on-how many evaluations per week does it require to permanently employ a single digger at the newly negotiated rates

There are plenty of other aspects of evaluations that need working out one of which is curators trying to turn evaluations into mini excavations....and then there’s over egged excavations

Troll diggers are bloody lucky to end up on any dig- dba or no dba –with a permanent pension able position flying pigs mate

Off to work on my client dba script “oh dear ducky” “I cant really say” “I need to do you a dba.” Kerching

[BAJR Host]

quote:I think that I have consistently argued that I want to do an evaluation trench before I Feel that there might be archaeology in a location.

Work on a site has to be justified, based on a reasonable argument that there is an archaeological potential.. such as known sites in the area, similar location of sites, etc etc… and in the main, when not part of a Predetermination, is part of a complete package.. ie… to be able to evaluate properly, you must do your dba to ensure you understand both what you might find and are prepared for it.. and where to place your evaluation trenches.

You don’t just plop trenches where-ever you wish… only where planners (with advice from the DC archaeologist) feel there is a reasonable potential.

quote:I would rather have an evaluation than a dba to cost an excavation

You do both … one to inform you about what is known about that area… the other to investigate subsurface. I have very rarely seen one without the other… in some cases… the DBA has shown (to the benefit of the developer) that the area was extensively quarried in the 1890s… thus reducing the area required for evaluation… if you had gone in with your evaluation trenches… without doing a proper DBA… then you would cost your client money.

quote:I presume that the curators are over worked because they are doing a lot of considering and worrying and staring at archive wondering and umming and pontificating when a predetermination evaluation should be the automatic expectation.

You presume wrong… it is mostly taken up with trying to deal with situations such as you are creating.

quote:you putting words in my mouth- where did I say there was archaeology on the site

well here is one where you knew about it… but did nothing?

quote:I know of a recent example of dba where my ordnance survey map had Anglo-Saxon Cemetery written on it that the propaganda magnificently failed to notice.

or what about

quote:...I mostly tell my clients not to mention archaeology and see if the curators impose conditions

You have said that you would advise a client (potential) to keep quiet until a curator notices… Where the correct approach is making the client aware that they will have to deal with archaeology at the earliest opportunity. I am unsure just how you have these clients? As it seems they come to you pre any application procedure…

Perhaps I may check your evaluation record…. I hope it is publicly accessible. You have presented a baffling and confused concept of archaeology and the planning process.. Perhaps you have just not explained yourself… It really is quite simple…

Scenario 1 – Pre-Application advice to developer – where you will advise on the potential based on gathering available material to access the situation. – Why you do this for free is beyond me?

Scenario 2 – Application Advice and Programme of Works. Prior to evaluating the area (or in conjunction) you carry out a DBA to ensure you are aware of all elements from field boundaries, petrol tanks, roads, previous excavations etc.. that will ensure both the location of your trenches are based on the best available knowledge AND that when/if you come down onto archaeology (do remember that evals stop at archaeology… they are not excavations) you have some sort of idea of what it is… Ah… this must be the line of that terraced house …. That will be the continuation of that ditch found in the 1987 excavation over the road…. Etc……

DBAs are part of the process … they are very very rarely stand alone…

It is a simple question … you either advise clients to keep quiet about archaeology or you don’t. That’s what your rambles point to…


"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Unitof1]

well here is one where you knew about it… but did nothing?


"quote:

I know of a recent example of dba where my ordnance survey map had Anglo-Saxon Cemetery written on it that the propaganda magnificently failed to notice."


I can assure you that I put it in writing, much to my detriment.

But the truth is that if they had had a genuine trench evaluation scheme and done by an archaeologist that was going to do the excavations who had previously done the dba I wouldn’t have given a monkies that the dba had missed it. back to Troll I suggest that dbas done by the consultants –pipelines, roads, quarries, major infrastructure, a lot of unit work are purposely not allowed to be done by the “archaeologist” and is the very first undermining of the archaeologists integrity on those projects-I doubt that it has anything to do with small unit scams. I can see a point to the archaeologist who is going to undertake the field work doing the dba. I think that you could call one of those an “archaeological” dba where the archaeologist is establishing their competence. I can imagine it being shown about on site and the diggers giving it a bit of feed back....all adding to the competence of the “archaeologist” not the RAO blaablaablaa

Clients come to me before they have bought the site before they have plans sometimes with plans that they are going to change I get work where they do material starts which can get really confusing but I think that they come to me early because they believe that I will give them an assessments of costs and likely outcomes for various scenarios. And if you take your” I am going to getcher guise” off you might be able to spot what is lttle more than a confidence trick in client liaison-would you rather they came to me after planning permission? I think whats getting your goat is that you want them to go to you. I can assure you that you would be seriously overworked. They are serious players (pig ugly) protecting their capital. In the main its time that they are short of. Every time you mention council you get the full Muslim greeting they dont want you going anywhere near the council until they are ready. I give them in my experience sites like this lets say 150 metres from the village church is all they have given you-this is what happened at X,Y and Z, you then start the caveats X possibly was an old permission pre archaeology, Y was a 1890 quarry and Z actually was right next to the church and was watching brief- if you think that their brains wont melt you try to explain that proximity to church shouldn’t be seen as more of an archaeological factor than a myriad of others which should be researched and just when you sit back thinking that you have done your bit they start with next door didnt get a condition (better still I just finished a job in the church!) I have a little old lady with a condition on at the moment for a small extension who I am going to do for free because at the bottom of her garden there as a fifteen metre water mains (french owned) easement that goes on 1.5 km archaeologistless throughout, her sons a builder-they are polite to my face but I wouldn’t be.

Now I watch twit team having absolutely no difficulty shoving a trench in here then one there different lengths all in the full flowing tradition of archaeological assessment. Planning permission not required.... No doubt they have a fame seeking DC moonlighting for the project but what is presented is the ease of taking a machine and stripping of the turf -this weekend I watched them go through two villages in a few days

But thankfully for all the consultants out there we have

“Work on a site has to be justified, based on a reasonable argument that there is an archaeological potential”- minimum a days work yes client archaeological potential

“You do both … one to inform you about what is known about that area… the other to investigate subsurface. I have very rarely seen one without the other… in some cases… the DBA has shown (to the benefit of the developer) that the area was extensively quarried in the 1890s… thus reducing the area required for evaluation… if you had gone in with your evaluation trenches… without doing a proper DBA… then you would cost your client money.”

Now this 1890s quarry that you somehow saved the developer money surely you would have preferred evaluation trenches which showed you extents depths natural. Bloody good site for swapcies. I dont want you to get eye strain staring at all those maps sticking your nose in where its not needed

Now if you every time you picked up the phone and just asked “have you done any trenchs yet” I and many others could get our little trowels smaller