14th September 2011, 08:40 PM
Actually Unit Strip, Map and Sample is an incredibly effective method of dealing with archaeological remains on a large site. Rather than opening up small keyhole areas the site was stripped in large stages and every machine had an archaeologist watching at all times. Any possible features identified were surveyed in using a total station and there was a mobile team within the larger team who would use the survey data to evaluate all features. If archaeological they were recorded as such and planned, sectioned, context sheets filled in, samples taken if necesary.... and so on.
When larger concentrations of archaeological remains were encountered then a larger team would be mobalised to carry out complete excavation. These larger areas included a stone built Iron Age village, a neolithic house, burnt mound, early christian cemetery, beaker cemetery, pos. henge, post med farmstead.....
Being able to excavate these sites in their entirity has yeilded so much information that if all we had done was expose and then cover with teram. As you well know we have no real idea how effective this method of conservation is long term and given the amount of landscaping carried out there would have been a great threat to the archaeology.
And as for the evaluation stage being small scale and inadiquate the developers were well aware of the archaeological potential of the site - it has a neolithic chambered tomb at one end and a bronze a standing stone at the centre! The evaluations showed there was archaeology on the site and that there was high potential for it to prove highly costly.
Archaeologists do not decide where a developer is going to build - we simply deal with what is found once a decision is made. The whole site has turned out to be a disaster from a developers point of veiw as the plots have yet to be bought, but this is the way the economy has gone. We are in a recession! The archaeology was done wholesale at the start of the project to make the site more attractive to potential clients as otherwise they would have to take the risk that archaeological remians could be found during the building of units leading to unforseen costs. Had the archaeology been done this way it would never have given such a complete and coherent picture as the record would have developed piecemeal with gaps.
Unit you are way out of order sugguesting that this site was "trashed for cash" when you know nothing about the standard of work carried out and the integrity of those involved. And the further work to eat up more taxpayers money - postex which again the costs were explained before hand!!!
And Wax this site has been amazing from an archaeological point of view and has and will have a significant increase in our knowledge of the area.
A poor descision by the development agency is not archaeologists fault and the journalists who published this awful report should be ashamed of themselves. We are not to blame and inflamitry articles like this totally misrepresent the profession.
When larger concentrations of archaeological remains were encountered then a larger team would be mobalised to carry out complete excavation. These larger areas included a stone built Iron Age village, a neolithic house, burnt mound, early christian cemetery, beaker cemetery, pos. henge, post med farmstead.....
Being able to excavate these sites in their entirity has yeilded so much information that if all we had done was expose and then cover with teram. As you well know we have no real idea how effective this method of conservation is long term and given the amount of landscaping carried out there would have been a great threat to the archaeology.
And as for the evaluation stage being small scale and inadiquate the developers were well aware of the archaeological potential of the site - it has a neolithic chambered tomb at one end and a bronze a standing stone at the centre! The evaluations showed there was archaeology on the site and that there was high potential for it to prove highly costly.
Archaeologists do not decide where a developer is going to build - we simply deal with what is found once a decision is made. The whole site has turned out to be a disaster from a developers point of veiw as the plots have yet to be bought, but this is the way the economy has gone. We are in a recession! The archaeology was done wholesale at the start of the project to make the site more attractive to potential clients as otherwise they would have to take the risk that archaeological remians could be found during the building of units leading to unforseen costs. Had the archaeology been done this way it would never have given such a complete and coherent picture as the record would have developed piecemeal with gaps.
Unit you are way out of order sugguesting that this site was "trashed for cash" when you know nothing about the standard of work carried out and the integrity of those involved. And the further work to eat up more taxpayers money - postex which again the costs were explained before hand!!!
And Wax this site has been amazing from an archaeological point of view and has and will have a significant increase in our knowledge of the area.
A poor descision by the development agency is not archaeologists fault and the journalists who published this awful report should be ashamed of themselves. We are not to blame and inflamitry articles like this totally misrepresent the profession.