standards anyone?

[Dinosaur]

your colleagues failing to raise the standards then :face-stir:

Intrigued as to how an office bod like yourself would know good excavation standards? - oh, and I can't repeat on here what one of the people in question (who's a b***dy good field archaeologist who I've had the pleasure to work with occasionally over the last 20 or so years) said about you :face-stir:
Oh, and where is this site that was 100% excavated? Never seen that in 30+ years. In fact all research excavations I've ever worked on that were not destruction-motivated have deliberately left bits unexcavated (often quite large bits) for future investigation - its always been considered extremely poor practice to totally destroy a site purely for research purposes in case methods/techniques improve in the future.....but then maybe you're planning on changing all that....

[Dinosaur]

:20% of the length of linears - sometimes reduced to 10% in the case of very long /empty/ boring field boundaries or where destruction will not be complete

......Never come across 100% excavation (aka 100% destruction) strategy except on research digs.

Linear whats? Thought we'd been training people away from that particular abuse of the English language! Features maybe? One of the most common edits...aaahhhh!!!! !

[chiz]

Never come across 100% excavation (aka 100% destruction) strategy except on research digs.

You never worked on an urban site then? 100% is the norm. If you don't dig it all, how do you get the whole sequence? And please don't say by machining it out and drawing the section!

[monty]

I heard it was 100% excavation of all features in the ROI ........ ??

[P Prentice]

Intrigued as to how an office bod like yourself would know good excavation standards? - oh, and I can't repeat on here what one of the people in question (who's a b***dy good field archaeologist who I've had the pleasure to work with occasionally over the last 20 or so years) said about you :face-stir:
Oh, and where is this site that was 100% excavated? Never seen that in 30+ years. In fact all research excavations I've ever worked on that were not destruction-motivated have deliberately left bits unexcavated (often quite large bits) for future investigation - its always been considered extremely poor practice to totally destroy a site purely for research purposes in case methods/techniques improve in the future.....but then maybe you're planning on changing all that....

little bit prickly today are we?
this office bod was over 25 years in the field as if that makes any difference - and i have no evidence that you or any of your coterie can dig for s**t, you certainly cant be very widely ranged if you havent done urban - maybe your superiors keep you in fields to keep you out of trouble:face-stir:
and it is quite easy to dig 100% of the area selected for research if the research strategy has been properly formulated - though thats probably not something you have ever worried about according to your previous posts. maybe its pooor practice to let you destroy 100% of a site

[Marcus Brody]

Just to clarify, my previous statement was that if a site will subsequently be totally destroyed by a development, I'd expect 100% excavation to be the starting position - after all, if the whole hillside is going to be removed by surface mining, preservation in situ of the unexcavated portion of the site is not going to be a realistic option. I've worked on sites where other sampling strategies have been used, but unless the methodology for preservation is realistic and credible across the whole period of construction and use, I'm never entirely convinced by leaving a partially-excavated site to the less-than-tender mercies of a construction firm.

So far as I can see, the main arguments for sample excavation in that sort of situation seem to come from the building firms - 'it'll take too long / cost too much to fully excavate, we're prepared to allow sample excavation to understand / characterise the site'. A lot of archaeological contractors seem to collude in this, recommending sample excavation because they don't think their client will wear the cost of 100%, and it's in this sort of situation that I'd hope the Council archaeologist would have the bottle to insist that if a site will be destroyed by the development, it should be fully excavated first (of course, I realise that even if such a recommendation is made, it may not be enforced by the planner or planning committee, who'll also have the developer whinging on at them about how the cost of dealing with archaeology is endangering local jobs, homes, growth and the future of all humanity).

I also accept that there are other situations where a percentage sampling strategy will be appropriate, particularly where it relates to areas that won't be directly affected by development, or where preservation in situ can be secured. In those sorts of cases, I'd agree that excavation should be limited to as little as may be needed to understand the site, on the basis that the surviving percentage can be left intact for the future.

[Dinosaur]

little bit prickly today are we?
this office bod was over 25 years in the field as if that makes any difference - and i have no evidence that you or any of your coterie can dig for s**t, you certainly cant be very widely ranged if you havent done urban - maybe your superiors keep you in fields to keep you out of trouble:face-stir:
and it is quite easy to dig 100% of the area selected for research if the research strategy has been properly formulated - though thats probably not something you have ever worried about according to your previous posts. maybe its pooor practice to let you destroy 100% of a site

Done plenty of urban, including ?1M+ jobs (and that was back in the 80s when ?1M went towards a really big hole), and never yet seen one that didn't involve some machining, even on TV. Do people still break out concrete and empty rubble-filled cellars by hand then?

And have worked for 30+ units, many of which have subsequently invited me back on better pay scales (I've really not ever had to spend a lot of time b*****ing about filling in application forms, haven't bothered maintaining a CV for the last 20 years and not been registered unemployed/social security since 1990 - and that was due to a broken arm), so yours may just possibly not be the only view of my digging skills? :face-stir:

[Dinosaur]

Marcus - what would be your view of a site where the strategy effectively involved re-design of the development and sacrificing c.5% (actually probably less) of the archaeology with only minimal excavation mainly restricted to the top of the archaeological sequence, and a follow-up watching brief, in order to preserve the remainder 'in situ' - a compromise devised between the consultant, client and county (although a little upsetting as the contractor watching beautiful stratigraphy being machined out, had to go and console myself checking the footing/piling plans to reassure myself that the damage wasn't as catastrophic as it looked). Any higher level of intervention would have (a) destroyed more of the archaeology, albeit with more paper record, and (b) potentially killed off a worthwhile educational development, PP's 'standard' of a 100% sample was certainly never going to happen, unfortunately

[Kajemby]

Done plenty of urban, including ?1M+ jobs (and that was back in the 80s when ?1M went towards a really big hole), and never yet seen one that didn't involve some machining, even on TV. Do people still break out concrete and empty rubble-filled cellars by hand then?

And have worked for 30+ units, many of which have subsequently invited me back on better pay scales (I've really not ever had to spend a lot of time b*****ing about filling in application forms, haven't bothered maintaining a CV for the last 20 years and not been registered unemployed/social security since 1990 - and that was due to a broken arm), so yours may just possibly not be the only view of my digging skills? :face-stir:

Don't worry dino, I've seen your digging, and it's passable, even though your sections were not as straight as I'd have liked! :face-stir: hahahahahaaaaahahaaaaha

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

The sort of section you could ski down?