Bad for Archaeology - Good for Archaeologists - Discuss

[Martin Locock]

If Dinosaur's contacts were correct in their stories, we need to remind everyone involved in commercial archaeology that, as with health and safety, to suspect poor archaeological practice and to say nothing is almost as bad as the practice itself. It doesn't have to involve whistleblowing or the IfA - chief execs of contractors are archaeologists and if they were aware that their staff were cutting too many corners they would act.

[archaeologyexile]

Very intersting debate about Watching Briefs......as a former Project Manager and current curator, I have very mixed feelings!

On the contract side they were a liscence to print money if managed correctly, you define the spec, call in extra people as you need them etc etc. However, you have to ensure your colleagues sign in, that youve agree the hourly rates and that youve got a post-ex mechanism. I can think of several projects that never got to post-ex and also of several with tens of thousands of pounds worth of work not paid for because of poor contract and site procedures.

Therefore as a curator I never reccomend them at all! and I don't believe in preservation in situ!

I also like digging and think that if the odd Scheduled Monument gets dug to make way for a road then as a whole we're better off if the project design is correctly written, after who else has the money to do real cutting edge research? no pun intended!

[P Prentice]

if they were aware that their staff were cutting too many corners they would act.

what do you mean too many?
surely they should not be doing exactly what they said in the wsi and not cutting any at all. your statement implies that it is ok to cut some!

[Martin Locock]

I agree, mostly - obviously there are a range of possible techniques and there may be occasions when more brutal ones can be justified. What I was trying to say was that if the diggers felt that they had seen unacceptable practices, it was their professional duty to say something about it rather than wait until it's too late.

[Dinosaur]

Have been involved in several schemes where they've tried to go around (or are planning to go around) Scheduled sites - invariably resulting in hitting just as much archaeology as if they'd just taken the shortest route. Most Scheduled 'area'-type sites are drawn far too tightly, it would be better if they widened a lot of them out but then allowed more e.g. roads to go through but with stricter/higher levels of archaeology - gives at least some handle on the character of all the other stuff to either side which is in danger otherwise of remaining a complete mystery till the end of time?

An example of idiotic intended preservation 'in situ' is the proposed widening of the A1 embankment to the north of the Swale over the northern suburb of Cataractonium Roman town (typically up to 1m of well-preserved strat) - according to the ES they're just going to bury all the buildings fronting onto one side of Dere Street under a huge motorway embankment which is unlikely ever to be removed, i.e. the archaeology will be effectively 'lost' without record. In the 20+ years since that scheme was first planned (currently postponed again) some university could have had the whole thing meticulously dug as a training dig, or could have been a cracking community project? And the rest of us would have had a considerably better understanding of a site that's otherwise 'untouchable'

[Wax]

I have often wondered why we presume that future generations will be at all interested in archaeology in the way that we are. Who knows if in a hundred years any one will actually care. Preservation in situ is short hand for "cannot be bothered to spend the time, effort, money etc needed".

If the past is another country the future is another planet

[poodash]

Cheers for the thumbs-up, Dino. I felt I had to get that rant off my chest!

Now, as for preservation in situ. I'm going to paraphrase (accurately, I hope) a Project Manager who used to work in London. I'm not sure I agree totally with this and there are holes in the argument, but it's fun. Here's this site, and you know from other sites which were nearby that it's a cracker. You might like to do a limited evaluation with a very tight method statement to check it's all it's cracked up to be; in fact, it turns out to be the archaeological equivalent of an Old Master. The mitigation strategy amounts to building the development on a raft suspended on concrete piles. But if you do this, wd you still have an Old Master? How many holes can you dig (with the difficulties of making sense of such a stratigraphically complex site from such limited final intervention, along with the dessicating and laterally intrusive impact of pumping concrete at some pressure down into these valuable deposits) before it ceases to be an Old Master? And now came the final rhetorical coup de grace: "Would you just cut holes in a Rembrandt?"

Enjoy and discuss!

[CARTOON REALITY]

along with the dessicating and laterally intrusive impact of pumping concrete at some pressure down into these valuable deposits

Anaerobic environments, (I'm thinking of bogs and Dublin urban sites here,) are acidic by nature, concrete piles are full of lime, basic by nature, this is bound to have an effect on sites at a chemical level. I've no idea what it is but it can't be good.

Rembrandts have had acid thrown on them and holes cut in them - only by lunatics though . . .

[Wax]

What is or is not an "Old Master" is not objective and varies from generation to generation poor old Vincent was not appreciated until long after his death. Turners latter "oddities" were not valued until the late 20th century. What was regarded as high art in in the Victorian era is now kitch. So yes there are quite a few people who would put holes in an " Old Master" and quite a few Old Masters that should have holes put in them

[CARTOON REALITY]

If you put a concrete pile through a painting it's not going to frame well, lifting it off the floor could even prove vexatious.