The Herit Age

[Jack]

Hi Jack
the last time i dug a cursus ditch and undertook some research it was more than apparent that nobody had actually bothered to dig more than the odd section through one thereby leaving 100s yards completely unknown. you cannot extrapolate anything from such a small sample so i reiterate my contestion (is that a word?) that everything left is still important as it may contain the information we dont yet have. and just cus nobody has chanced upon much between the ditches it dosent mean there is nothing there.
with regard to proving them ritual - i dont see a need and i think that academic theory has moved way beyond worrying about what is ritual and the ritual of what is!

Project Budgets don't work that way. Their just wouldn't be the time or money to excavate hundreds of meters just on the off-chance of finding something. Much better to concentrate money and time on stuff that will hit more research priorities.

As Dino pointed out, there are much more interesting stuff to rescue on the site............Cursus are usually very long, presumably some of the ditches will remain beyond the development after the extraction Dino?

The ritual comment was because job specifications usually work on sample excavation of 100% of ritual features (and sometimes postholes), 50% of settlement related features and 20% or 10% of linears.

[P Prentice]

Project Budgets don't work that way. Their just wouldn't be the time or money to excavate hundreds of meters just on the off-chance of finding something. Much better to concentrate money and time on stuff that will hit more research priorities.

As Dino pointed out, there are much more interesting stuff to rescue on the site............Cursus are usually very long, presumably some of the ditches will remain beyond the development after the extraction Dino?

The ritual comment was because job specifications usually work on sample excavation of 100% of ritual features (and sometimes postholes), 50% of settlement related features and 20% or 10% of linears.

surely if there is insufficient funding to make an appropriate record then it should be left in situ?
project budgets are set according to a wsi which really should incorporate an academic research design based on current theory and past interventions - not based on the offer of a few bob to dig an old ditch.

i would be interested to know if the topsoil was completely stripped over the area to be quarried?

i know why you made the ritual comment but maybe i should have taken the time to explain why its use in specs from mounties should be abolished as misleading and inadequate to explain the complexity of the context of the features it perports to desciribe.

i just dont like digging by percentages because they are lazy, thoughtless and ultimately meaningless

[Sith]

surely if there is insufficient funding to make an appropriate record then it should be left in situ?.......i just dont like digging by percentages because they are lazy, thoughtless and ultimately meaningless

The developer will be providing funding to cover the cost of the work required by the WSI, agreed (whether we like it or not) by the curator. A developer who will voluntarily pay more than that is a rare beast, particularly in the current financial climate.

I agree that percentages are at best an arbitary way of collecting data - after all, everyone knows at least one story of all the good stuff being spotted in the machine bucket between trenches/ditch sections etc. however, total excavation 'just in case' is herd to justify to a developer. It is usually better (and often cheaper) to try and design developments from the outset to avoid impacts on archaeology and therefore acheive... preservation in situ.

Oops! I said it again.

[P Prentice]

The developer will be providing funding to cover the cost of the work required by the WSI, agreed (whether we like it or not) by the curator. A developer who will voluntarily pay more than that is a rare beast, particularly in the current financial climate.

I agree that percentages are at best an arbitary way of collecting data - after all, everyone knows at least one story of all the good stuff being spotted in the machine bucket between trenches/ditch sections etc. however, total excavation 'just in case' is herd to justify to a developer. It is usually better (and often cheaper) to try and design developments from the outset to avoid impacts on archaeology and therefore acheive... preservation in situ.

Oops! I said it again.

some things are so important that developers need to be shown (mostly by scheduling - and i am astonished this cursus isnt uless the planning permission is so old?) why it should be 100% excavated - that's our collective job!

pps5 isnt about rescue or about the presumption in favour of preservation - its about 'understanding' oops i said it again:face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

surely if there is insufficient funding to make an appropriate record then it should be left in situ?
project budgets are set according to a wsi which really should incorporate an academic research design based on current theory and past interventions - not based on the offer of a few bob to dig an old ditch.

i would be interested to know if the topsoil was completely stripped over the area to be quarried?

i know why you made the ritual comment but maybe i should have taken the time to explain why its use in specs from mounties should be abolished as misleading and inadequate to explain the complexity of the context of the features it perports to desciribe.

i just dont like digging by percentages because they are lazy, thoughtless and ultimately meaningless

You should have lodged an objection when the mineral consent was at the planning stage?....maybe it would have been better if a few other people had anyway....

Topsoil stripping's ongoing in phases, at the current rate probably for the rest of the year, fully controlled by yours truly - actually 10ha would be rather a large area to deal with all in one go without the 500 slaves (who still haven't turned up, presumably tied-up building a pyramid somewhere...). The whole thing would be too big to photo with the current length of string on the kite anyway.....kite-cam's well recommended, cheap and cheerful (apart from camera breakages) and shows loads of stuff that frankly can't be seen on the ground on such a big area, instant imagery (as long as the wind's blowing and in vaguely the right direction!) and produces pretty piccies to keep the client happy too :face-approve:

Frankly, so little is known about cursuses that anythingw new is a bonus - the available suite of 'primary' and secure C14 dates is pathetic (see various Loveday publications) so C14/OSL is a big priority, and I've got loads of stuff other than the big ditches which is unique and far more worthy of in-depth investigationn

[apologies for all the spare letters etc, the delete button on this ancient laptop seems to have died...]

Yes, there will be a few bits of the monument left for posterity, there's around 100m of what appearas to be the best-preserved bit, plus several fragments sealed under roads and a disused railway line, and an unknown length at one end where it's never been traced, so scope for a Time Team.....

Anyone know if there's any good evidence from anywhere for gang-digging/segmented construction of the things?

....and on a slightly seperate (but not unconnected) subject, does anyone know if ground-sensing radar worksth (aaghh!) through heavily constructed concrete and tarmac roadways? - looking for big targets though, around the size of, say, 4m wide by 1m+ deep silt-filled ditches cut in clean gravel and sand

[Boxoffrogs]

Dino,

GSR should be able to help you there. BUT do not rely on it 100% take it as an indication only...Good luck!

[Jack]

Dino,
you get barrow ditches dug in random joined (and not) up bits in East Yorks...........but not really evidence for work gangs (and I think your aware of this).

Ground penetrating radar isn't up to the job in my opinion...........but all my info is a few years out of date. What you want is SQUID gradiometry.

PP,
whether PPS5 isn't about rescue or not, rescue archaeology is. But I suspect your focusing on one aspect of it and missing the spirit of it. Commercial archaeology is and always will be rescue archaeology. That is recording (and understanding - i don't see the difference) the remains that are going to be destroyed by a development.

Understanding is a three edged sword. And in archaeology is a mythical holy grail, when you delve down to the nitty gritty details so little is understood on a basic level. ANY excavated remains cannot be fully understood until someone builds a time machine.

For instance take the case of the cursus. You wouldn't be any closer to understanding what it was for or who was using by 100% excavating the ditches. The stuff in the ditches are more likely to originate from eroded material from any banks - i.e. be from before (and some from during) its construction and from silting up of the ditches after they are no longer maintained (i.e. from after the monument has fallen out of use).

Unless of course the natural silting up of the ditches was part of its use (and how could you ever tell without using circular logic). Thus the few sherds of pottery, flint flakes, charred grains or hazelnut shells and/or the odd fragments of human bone etc collected from your 100% excavation wouldn't enable an understanding of the monument. Besides, you'd get a similar assemblage of material form a 50% excavation (unless your really unlucky).

[the invisible man]

GPR will normally work through tarmac and concrete - provided the concrete is not reinforced and somewhat dependent on the various bedding and base layers beneath. Gravel and sand are good but ditches are not ideal targets for radar. Your best bet might be a few trial traverses. I can recommend a good firm..............................

[Dinosaur]

Thought you might! }

Not an immediate project, merely wanting to highlight potentially interesting surviving bits of a heavily quarried landscape and what could potentially be done with them in the future - it struck me the main quarry access road is a protected (ignoring services etc etc etc) surviving transect across another possible ex-cursus that's been pretty much totally lost elsewhere. Someone in the 70s recorded what appears to be a cursus ditch, and it would be nice to find out whether it has a parallel friend 30-40m to one side. About 1km away there are two big parallel ditches visible running for 300-400m on ancient APs and apparently co-linear with the first despite the big gap...good news is that one of the terminals may survive beyond this where amazingly there's a field that's never been quarried or built on.

Jack- we're talking lengths on varying alignments, sudden changes from continuous slots to lines of oval pits, that kind of stuff, very wierd, especially the length of slot that suddenly turns a right angle away from the cursus....next crew had to start again 4m further on but at least their bit seems to be fairly parallel- presumably they'd witnessed the previous lot being suitably dealt with :face-approve:

[P Prentice]

Thought you might! }

Not an immediate project, merely wanting to highlight potentially interesting surviving bits of a heavily quarried landscape and what could potentially be done with them in the future - it struck me the main quarry access road is a protected (ignoring services etc etc etc) surviving transect across another possible ex-cursus that's been pretty much totally lost elsewhere. Someone in the 70s recorded what appears to be a cursus ditch, and it would be nice to find out whether it has a parallel friend 30-40m to one side. About 1km away there are two big parallel ditches visible running for 300-400m on ancient APs and apparently co-linear with the first despite the big gap...good news is that one of the terminals may survive beyond this where amazingly there's a field that's never been quarried or built on.

Jack- we're talking lengths on varying alignments, sudden changes from continuous slots to lines of oval pits, that kind of stuff, very wierd, especially the length of slot that suddenly turns a right angle away from the cursus....next crew had to start again 4m further on but at least their bit seems to be fairly parallel- presumably they'd witnessed the previous lot being suitably dealt with :face-approve:

what you are describing appears to be totally at odds with what we do know about cursus construction and the oval pit alignment technique sounds more like you would expect in a causewayed enclosure -you presumably know about the pit cursuses in lowland Scotland?. add this to the possibility that you are in one of Roy's cult centres then this is hugely important - surely?