28th November 2005, 08:09 PM
I've just found a startling example of an excavation mitigation in a northern town that would not pass in a southern one. (In my experience)
The site was a high profile and, I gather, controversial excavation in a deeply stratified and waterlogged area of a historic town, in which the archaeological contractor seems to have convinced the curator that rather than single context recording, a Mortimer Wheeler like grid of box trenches was the way forward.!!!!????????
The reason? I will paraphrase from the publication to protect the guilty as per the AUP.
"...the complex and disturbed nature of the archaeology... would be impossible to interpret by stratigraphic hand excavation. This was due to ... conditions rendering edges and interfaces almost invisible."
Unsurprisingly, the report is full of gems like "The majority of these pits were only recorded in section in the machine cut sondages..."
So presumably the features that were almost invisible in plan were perfectly visible in section? Sounds to me like archaeology done on the cheap, and the curator has allowed it.
Having myself recently done an evaluation in the same strat and waterlogged conditions in the same town I now feel very put out. Yes, it was difficult to see edges, but they were there and urban archaeology is often like that.
If I didn't feel that I would be breaking many of the IFA guidelines to best practice (despite not being in the IFA, I hasten to add), I might think that a precedent had been set and that I've massively overdone my site. Keep in mind that my site was an eval. dug single context plan! (not just single context recording), while theirs was an excavation. I hope the developer doesn't find out as he will rightly feel cheated.
So, my question to the southern curators out there? Would you have accepted this on your patch?
The site was a high profile and, I gather, controversial excavation in a deeply stratified and waterlogged area of a historic town, in which the archaeological contractor seems to have convinced the curator that rather than single context recording, a Mortimer Wheeler like grid of box trenches was the way forward.!!!!????????
The reason? I will paraphrase from the publication to protect the guilty as per the AUP.
"...the complex and disturbed nature of the archaeology... would be impossible to interpret by stratigraphic hand excavation. This was due to ... conditions rendering edges and interfaces almost invisible."
Unsurprisingly, the report is full of gems like "The majority of these pits were only recorded in section in the machine cut sondages..."
So presumably the features that were almost invisible in plan were perfectly visible in section? Sounds to me like archaeology done on the cheap, and the curator has allowed it.
Having myself recently done an evaluation in the same strat and waterlogged conditions in the same town I now feel very put out. Yes, it was difficult to see edges, but they were there and urban archaeology is often like that.
If I didn't feel that I would be breaking many of the IFA guidelines to best practice (despite not being in the IFA, I hasten to add), I might think that a precedent had been set and that I've massively overdone my site. Keep in mind that my site was an eval. dug single context plan! (not just single context recording), while theirs was an excavation. I hope the developer doesn't find out as he will rightly feel cheated.
So, my question to the southern curators out there? Would you have accepted this on your patch?