18th January 2007, 02:24 PM
Walkover survey and geophysical survey are both methods of evaluation and as such there are standards, both general and specific, drawn up by the IFA and EH.
Plus, if these methods of evaluation are carried out post determination then a WSI stating the standards to which a contractor will adhere will have been agreed with the planning archaeologist. Some sensible companies may even discuss/consult with planning archaeologists before carrying out pre-determination evaluation.
If you were questioning the value of DBA's or walkover survey as standalone techniques for determining the presence/absence of subsurface archaeology, then I might agree.
You seem to suggest that archaeologists should roam across the countryside strapped to the back of 360s blindly digging holes wherever a large scale development is proposed without any knowledge of the setting or past land use of the area affected?
Also, the idea that progressing straight to widescale evaluation trenching would work out cheaper for a client than producing a DBA and conducting non-intrusive types of evaluation, which subsequently inform the need for trenching, their position and the total area investigated is questionable.
As to your final point - the thrust of PPG16 is preservation in situ or otherwise by record, not trenches, trenches, trenches.
Happiness depends on ourselves.
Plus, if these methods of evaluation are carried out post determination then a WSI stating the standards to which a contractor will adhere will have been agreed with the planning archaeologist. Some sensible companies may even discuss/consult with planning archaeologists before carrying out pre-determination evaluation.
If you were questioning the value of DBA's or walkover survey as standalone techniques for determining the presence/absence of subsurface archaeology, then I might agree.
You seem to suggest that archaeologists should roam across the countryside strapped to the back of 360s blindly digging holes wherever a large scale development is proposed without any knowledge of the setting or past land use of the area affected?
Also, the idea that progressing straight to widescale evaluation trenching would work out cheaper for a client than producing a DBA and conducting non-intrusive types of evaluation, which subsequently inform the need for trenching, their position and the total area investigated is questionable.
As to your final point - the thrust of PPG16 is preservation in situ or otherwise by record, not trenches, trenches, trenches.
Happiness depends on ourselves.