23rd January 2007, 03:14 PM
I bolded once and am not sure what ground survey is. I dont think that by doing ground survey you get out of trial trenching
We can conclude from this that:
1. evaluation is not restricted to trenching; -say evaluation to me and I dig a trench
2. it is only applicable where previous information suggests that important remains may be present - not in every case; -I suggest previous trial trenching and in every case
3. even in those cases, it is at the discretion of the authority whether or not they request an evaluation - but they are mandated to do so if they think it is necessary, because PPG says it is 'reasonable'. âby evaluation you dont mean trial trenching?
1. where there is already enough information to define the scope of mitigation excavation required. 'Keyhole' excavation in trial trenches would then just compromise the quality of the deposits available for the full excavation.
I think that a developer/archaeologist would be a fool to go into excavation without a trial trench or two
I have also dealt with large development sites where there was archaeology, but at a very low density. A trial-trenching evaluation, particularly if not targeted on the basis of aerial photo or geophysics evidence, would probably have failed to pick up anything, leading to a probably decision not to impose a planning condition. A watching brief during topsoil stripping, appropriately specified but without prior trial trenching, led to the identification and thorough recording of an extensive archaeological landscape.
Ban watching briefs
We can conclude from this that:
1. evaluation is not restricted to trenching; -say evaluation to me and I dig a trench
2. it is only applicable where previous information suggests that important remains may be present - not in every case; -I suggest previous trial trenching and in every case
3. even in those cases, it is at the discretion of the authority whether or not they request an evaluation - but they are mandated to do so if they think it is necessary, because PPG says it is 'reasonable'. âby evaluation you dont mean trial trenching?
1. where there is already enough information to define the scope of mitigation excavation required. 'Keyhole' excavation in trial trenches would then just compromise the quality of the deposits available for the full excavation.
I think that a developer/archaeologist would be a fool to go into excavation without a trial trench or two
I have also dealt with large development sites where there was archaeology, but at a very low density. A trial-trenching evaluation, particularly if not targeted on the basis of aerial photo or geophysics evidence, would probably have failed to pick up anything, leading to a probably decision not to impose a planning condition. A watching brief during topsoil stripping, appropriately specified but without prior trial trenching, led to the identification and thorough recording of an extensive archaeological landscape.
Ban watching briefs