4th June 2006, 02:07 PM
This is a very interesting topic. The crux of the problem is liability. In short, unless a DC archaeologist is extremely confident about the potential nature of the sub-surface archaeology (and this method really refers to big rural sites e.g quarries)then they are not going to advocate a Strip and Map strategy without a large trenching evaluation (e.g. 5%). I had a conversation about this with our DC archaeologist recently about a site that I felt was ripe for no trench eval and a SMA (we had done the DBA and some targeted trenching on cropmarks and had excavated a very similarly preserved site 1km away). My point was that an eval that costs 30K and still doesnt give us a handle on the archaeology (low density of features and lots of discrete pits) was a waste of money and we should go to a SMA. He argued that that was too much of a risk and that even though the eval might waste 30K it still informs the client better on potential costs of an area excavation.
At this present we are locked in a catch 22 situation. Areas to excavate would be determined by the trench eval but I felt that looking with less resoulution at the whole with A SMA would better characterise the site by giving us the opportunity to look at isolated features and unexpected settlement foci. Im not doing a crappy consultancy thing of less is more but I genuinley think that we would better understand the site by a SMA.
So, the main problem is the risk to the developer: if you go straight to SMA then they could be hit with big costs if loads stuff is found (that an eval could have informed about) but in some case going SMA will give a better result and also be significantly. cheaper... The age old problem of quantifying the unquantifiable.
I therefore really like the method flagged up in one of these posts about an initial topsoil strip, a quick TST plan and quantification and then negotiation with the client over finances/resources needed, but do wonder how best the circle of risk can be squared in the current system?
I also take the point about presevation in situ: i.e. if you have already stripped the site then its already a bit 'after the lord mayors show'. A change in legislation required perhaps?
Oh and Oxbeast dont be worried about the county mounty not looking at you: he is, its just that you're working in Lincolnshire...
G
At this present we are locked in a catch 22 situation. Areas to excavate would be determined by the trench eval but I felt that looking with less resoulution at the whole with A SMA would better characterise the site by giving us the opportunity to look at isolated features and unexpected settlement foci. Im not doing a crappy consultancy thing of less is more but I genuinley think that we would better understand the site by a SMA.
So, the main problem is the risk to the developer: if you go straight to SMA then they could be hit with big costs if loads stuff is found (that an eval could have informed about) but in some case going SMA will give a better result and also be significantly. cheaper... The age old problem of quantifying the unquantifiable.
I therefore really like the method flagged up in one of these posts about an initial topsoil strip, a quick TST plan and quantification and then negotiation with the client over finances/resources needed, but do wonder how best the circle of risk can be squared in the current system?
I also take the point about presevation in situ: i.e. if you have already stripped the site then its already a bit 'after the lord mayors show'. A change in legislation required perhaps?
Oh and Oxbeast dont be worried about the county mounty not looking at you: he is, its just that you're working in Lincolnshire...
G