3rd March 2008, 05:54 PM
It was no surprise that the recent EH piling guidance fell short of endorsing the Arup 5% loss concept. Many of us who do work in York have come to hate this particular bit of oft quoted Guidance. There even appears to be a growing acceptance of the problems with the practicalities, if not the theory, of preservation In-situ among EH types.
I agree wholeheartedly with Historic building that the problem with piling is the removal of obstructions. This is quite often done with no archaeological monitoring, and covers a much larger area than the pile positions. This can be mechanical excavation to natural along all pile lines. In the worst case I have seen the financial incentives/penalties to remove all obstructions (in this case all masonry and rubble bigger than a brick) were such that the contractors repeatedly ignored threats of enforcement action by the curator. This activity would have gone unobserved had archaeologists not been called out to record other remains on the site. My suspicion is that this activity goes on unobserved on many sites.
Archaeological excavation around pile positions or lines may be a limited way of understanding a site, but surely it is better than the undocumented destruction that seems to happen on top of the "acceptable loss" percentage of the piles themselves?
I'm also reminded of the horrific scene witnessed by a friend in York where a screw pile caught a waterlogged timber and spun it through a few metres of strat to the surface.
I agree wholeheartedly with Historic building that the problem with piling is the removal of obstructions. This is quite often done with no archaeological monitoring, and covers a much larger area than the pile positions. This can be mechanical excavation to natural along all pile lines. In the worst case I have seen the financial incentives/penalties to remove all obstructions (in this case all masonry and rubble bigger than a brick) were such that the contractors repeatedly ignored threats of enforcement action by the curator. This activity would have gone unobserved had archaeologists not been called out to record other remains on the site. My suspicion is that this activity goes on unobserved on many sites.
Archaeological excavation around pile positions or lines may be a limited way of understanding a site, but surely it is better than the undocumented destruction that seems to happen on top of the "acceptable loss" percentage of the piles themselves?
I'm also reminded of the horrific scene witnessed by a friend in York where a screw pile caught a waterlogged timber and spun it through a few metres of strat to the surface.