25th September 2010, 03:07 PM
I can only agree... The level of consistency is woeful... from how to fill in a context sheet to how to sample a pit... from where to place trenches to how many people are required on a particular site and what experience is needed. The thrust of this thread does tend to curatorial bashing, but by gawd, we can do the same to contractors, to diggers, to PMs to companies, to the whole damn mess... and once we have finished, then what??
(As I have admitted I was a Council Asst. Archaeologist... ) SO I am in effect kicking myself in the goolies. :I
Once... a long time ago... in a poorly attended free conference in York... I waved this about... it seems to fit the bill... Says what is needed, how many people, what level of competence, etc... outcomes, reporting... everything.... So every archaeologist across the Netherlands and every monitor of archaeologists is using the same criteria... joy!
Have another look at this, and tell me it ain't worth a crack... and of course... licence me!
http://www.sikb.nl/upload/documents/archeo/knauk.pdf (1.8 meg) Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard
as an example:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD EVALUATION
3.1 Description
3.1.1 Objective
The objective of the archaeological field evaluation is to supplement and verify the specified predictive model that resulted from the desk-based assessment. This is done by fieldwork designed to acquire (additional) information on known or expected archaeological values within a survey area. This covers the presence or absence, the nature and character, the quantity, dating, integrity and preservation and the relative quality of the archaeological values. The result is a report with a valuation and, if prescribed in the Project Outline, (selection) recommendations which can be used to take a policy decision (usually a selection decision). This means that the field activities are carried out to the level at which this decision can responsibly be taken. In other words, the archaeological field evaluation must be carried out in a way that is not more destructive than necessary.
3.1.2 Determining the survey method
In the case of the archaeological field evaluation, a distinction is made between an exploratory, a mapping and an evaluating phase. The objective of the exploratory phase is to acquire an insight into the geomorphologic landscape units in so far as these are related to location choices in the past. This can take the form of a visual inspection, as well as a geo-archaeological borehole survey. The objective is to exclude low-potential zones and select high-potential zones for the following phases. If sufficient detail is already known about the landscape, this phase can.............
...........Project Outline, the selection of the most effective and efficient method will be left up to the expertise of the executing body (the archaeological contractor). Requirements will have to be imposed on the (scientific) substantiation of this choice:
1. A specification of all the information used on which the choice is to be based.
2. The presumed characteristics of the expected archaeological sites with regard to depth, size, archaeological indicators, spatial distribution within the site.
3. The manner in which the selected survey strategy can demonstrate the presence or absence of archaeological values (or the presumed characteristics) in a sufficiently reliable manner. The basis for the choice...............
...........................The survey methods are listed below classified according to the extent to which they disrupt archaeological values. The methods can be subdivided into:
a. non-destructive methods:
? geophysical methods: electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic methods, possibly in combination with remote sensing techniques.
b. slightly destructive methods:
? field walking;
? borehole survey;
? test pits (pits of 1 m2 max.).
c. destructive methods:
? trial trenches.3.1.3
Process
The archaeological field evaluation process comprises the following subprocesses:
1. preparation of archaeological field evaluation;
2. implementation of archaeological field evaluation;
3. interpretation of archaeological field evaluation.
A decision can be taken to carry out the entire preliminary process (as a desk-based assessment and archaeological field evaluation together) ? in phases and as a single assignment. In this case, the standards and guidelines relating to desk-based assessments and ar..............3.1.4 Actors
Archaeological field evaluation Job
Junior Archaeologist
Medior Archaeologist
Senior Archaeologist
Junior Specialist
Senior Specialist
Junior Field Technician
Senior Field Technician
Excavation Worker
Non-archaeological Specialist
Land Surveyor
Geophysicist
and there is goes, on and on, in detail about who does what, when and why, and at what stage as well as what is expected of them... shurely this is not beyond our capabilities to implement nationally? Then we all know what to do... who should do it... and when we are pulling legs!
(As I have admitted I was a Council Asst. Archaeologist... ) SO I am in effect kicking myself in the goolies. :I
Once... a long time ago... in a poorly attended free conference in York... I waved this about... it seems to fit the bill... Says what is needed, how many people, what level of competence, etc... outcomes, reporting... everything.... So every archaeologist across the Netherlands and every monitor of archaeologists is using the same criteria... joy!
Have another look at this, and tell me it ain't worth a crack... and of course... licence me!
http://www.sikb.nl/upload/documents/archeo/knauk.pdf (1.8 meg) Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard
as an example:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD EVALUATION
3.1 Description
3.1.1 Objective
The objective of the archaeological field evaluation is to supplement and verify the specified predictive model that resulted from the desk-based assessment. This is done by fieldwork designed to acquire (additional) information on known or expected archaeological values within a survey area. This covers the presence or absence, the nature and character, the quantity, dating, integrity and preservation and the relative quality of the archaeological values. The result is a report with a valuation and, if prescribed in the Project Outline, (selection) recommendations which can be used to take a policy decision (usually a selection decision). This means that the field activities are carried out to the level at which this decision can responsibly be taken. In other words, the archaeological field evaluation must be carried out in a way that is not more destructive than necessary.
3.1.2 Determining the survey method
In the case of the archaeological field evaluation, a distinction is made between an exploratory, a mapping and an evaluating phase. The objective of the exploratory phase is to acquire an insight into the geomorphologic landscape units in so far as these are related to location choices in the past. This can take the form of a visual inspection, as well as a geo-archaeological borehole survey. The objective is to exclude low-potential zones and select high-potential zones for the following phases. If sufficient detail is already known about the landscape, this phase can.............
...........Project Outline, the selection of the most effective and efficient method will be left up to the expertise of the executing body (the archaeological contractor). Requirements will have to be imposed on the (scientific) substantiation of this choice:
1. A specification of all the information used on which the choice is to be based.
2. The presumed characteristics of the expected archaeological sites with regard to depth, size, archaeological indicators, spatial distribution within the site.
3. The manner in which the selected survey strategy can demonstrate the presence or absence of archaeological values (or the presumed characteristics) in a sufficiently reliable manner. The basis for the choice...............
...........................The survey methods are listed below classified according to the extent to which they disrupt archaeological values. The methods can be subdivided into:
a. non-destructive methods:
? geophysical methods: electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic methods, possibly in combination with remote sensing techniques.
b. slightly destructive methods:
? field walking;
? borehole survey;
? test pits (pits of 1 m2 max.).
c. destructive methods:
? trial trenches.3.1.3
Process
The archaeological field evaluation process comprises the following subprocesses:
1. preparation of archaeological field evaluation;
2. implementation of archaeological field evaluation;
3. interpretation of archaeological field evaluation.
A decision can be taken to carry out the entire preliminary process (as a desk-based assessment and archaeological field evaluation together) ? in phases and as a single assignment. In this case, the standards and guidelines relating to desk-based assessments and ar..............3.1.4 Actors
Archaeological field evaluation Job
Junior Archaeologist
Medior Archaeologist
Senior Archaeologist
Junior Specialist
Senior Specialist
Junior Field Technician
Senior Field Technician
Excavation Worker
Non-archaeological Specialist
Land Surveyor
Geophysicist
and there is goes, on and on, in detail about who does what, when and why, and at what stage as well as what is expected of them... shurely this is not beyond our capabilities to implement nationally? Then we all know what to do... who should do it... and when we are pulling legs!