31st May 2006, 11:05 AM
I personally like the flexibility of stripping an area and making further decisions based on what is actually there, rather than having no idea what lies outside the trenches.
In my experience it has been used in preference to a re-active watching brief methodology, where much more has been found than was expected. Even a basic plan without excavation allows more to be known about a site than most watching briefs provide, so anything else is a bonus. I have also strangely done an urban "evaluation" within an area stripped to the first archaeological horizon. It allowed much better trench placement and better understanding of the site as a whole than a normal evaluation would. I am at present writing this up, so I may get back to you about specific problems. I think though, that it is going to write up like a normal evaluation report where adjacent areas have been subjected to an extremely thorough, if shallow, watching brief.
You are probably right in the "making it up" assesment, but I suspect that it is only ever used when the traditional methodology and planning system has broken down. I understand the turnaround time on planning applications has become ridiculously short and is causing problems like this.
The "making it up" part might not be a great methodology for statistical reasons (or others that i forgot once i left university
), but it results in much better use of limited resources, and better information for the curators. It does however rely on a certain amount of trust in the contractor.
In my experience it has been used in preference to a re-active watching brief methodology, where much more has been found than was expected. Even a basic plan without excavation allows more to be known about a site than most watching briefs provide, so anything else is a bonus. I have also strangely done an urban "evaluation" within an area stripped to the first archaeological horizon. It allowed much better trench placement and better understanding of the site as a whole than a normal evaluation would. I am at present writing this up, so I may get back to you about specific problems. I think though, that it is going to write up like a normal evaluation report where adjacent areas have been subjected to an extremely thorough, if shallow, watching brief.
You are probably right in the "making it up" assesment, but I suspect that it is only ever used when the traditional methodology and planning system has broken down. I understand the turnaround time on planning applications has become ridiculously short and is causing problems like this.
The "making it up" part might not be a great methodology for statistical reasons (or others that i forgot once i left university
), but it results in much better use of limited resources, and better information for the curators. It does however rely on a certain amount of trust in the contractor.