Free archaeology

[Doug]

So can anyone point to the post where I said PM was the be all to end all of everything? I feel like we keep having the same conversation in which I say always always dig dig and dig and people keep saying PM is bollocks. Which I have to say makes seem like we are missing each other.

In case anyone reads that the wrong way I am joking. Actually quite happy people have been asking questions, if only more people did.:face-angel:

[Unitof1]

Not sure this makes complete sense!

The geophysics surveys of the world normally go about finding the biggest, most easily accessible resources at the cheapest expenditure..The trend over time is to find smaller reserves in amongst the earlier discoveries. Over time they have gone from 2D surveys to 3D....

I'm very puzzled as to why you say geophysics can't assist in evaluating a site.

Primarily because in a planning application I have a "site". I am not trying to find a site. What I am trying to do is exploit or if you like evaluate a "site" presumably to a view to excavate the site.

Are you saying that all sites that are put up for development should be totally stripped for the purposes of assessing the archaeology

that could depend on what you mean by assessing. PPG16 said that evaluation should be considered an inexpensive method. With trench evaluation you have evaluation attempting to find a site for excavation as well as evaluation trying to estimate the cost of any subsequent excavation of a site. The assessment is about what signifies something called excavation which I would suggest should not be confused with evaluation. Sites that are put up for development have footprints of intensive development as well as peripheral areas where the impact of development is less substantiated. What should an evaluation assess: establish articulated human remains but not excavate them, find context secure features but not establish their extent, with the out come that a price for excavation with contingency can be established.

If you have kept up the water is already pretty muddy: are we talking post determination or pre. If it was left to me I want that client to positively come to me before they go anywhere near a curator, pay through the nose for me to totally strip the "site" of any archaeology before they go anywhere near a curatorial system. They will get the cheapest price and archaeology will get the best result and you probably will still call me a cowboy.

[Unitof1]

Doug

Yes, defiantly

show me any cost evaluation of doing geophysics over evaluation by trench against outcome. Its an impossibility. (defiantly).

[Doug]

Doug show me any cost evaluation of doing geophysics over evaluation by trench against outcome. Its an impossibility. (defiantly).

Unit, I think you answered the wrong question.

[Unitof1]

as in two evaluations don't make a right?

[Doug]

as in two evaluations don't make a right?

As in PM was best for planning stages e.g. tom has an idea for a building but dosen't know where to put it. Unless you meant to answer differently earlier and just grabbed the wrong quote so I thought you were talking about PM.

[Dinosaur]

you mean find some poor mug to wallow in debt whilst their lecturers walk around talking a load of rubbish to mostly foreign msc students.

No actually, usually the lecturers, they all seem just as desperate for academic credits as the lower orders - just as long as it's getting done by someone else for free (they can have the credit, not much use in our side of things)

[Dinosaur]

...the commercial is limited to the sites that are being developed while the research is looking for the sites in the landscape

You don't get many landscape survey and major linear infrastructure contracts, do you? We spend half our time trying to predict (ok, guess) where stuff will be and then find it. Commercial work can be proactive if you've got the right mindset :face-thinks:

[BAJR]

call them what you will ..... should be taking landscape into account according to advice from EH and encapsulted in PPS5....if they are not they should be challenged as to why not!!

WEll said!

Not sure this makes complete sense!

You expect sense from Unit

I think teh ideas are that all these elements create a rounded picture and are used appropriately. as an ex planning archaeologist... I would say we do have a use. as there would be a lot fewer projects without us arguing the toss with teh planning department

[Unitof1]

tom has an idea for a building but dosen't know where to put it

I can honestly say that I have never met such a case but if I did met this tom in my world I would tell tom to put it on a scheduled monument or anywhere that I can get to do some excavation/screw as much money out of it because I being an archaeologist want to excavate. In your world tom wants to use you to pretend that you are an archaeologist and stop any form of excavation and is particularly interested in any non intrusive methods that could mascaraed as doing an evaluation hence dba, pm geophysics.

We spend half our time trying to predict (ok, guess) where stuff will be and then find it

when the client wants you to find nothing so that the other half of your time you look for nothing which is why you will use negative results from pm as an excuse not to evaluate by trench most of the area and you and the so called curators can pretend that geophysics has done the archaeology.