21st October 2012, 11:57 PM
Hi gumbo
We did on site finds processing and had a finds supervisor who did id's and spot dating, supported by finds specialists who did site visits every week or two to provide advice and confirm dates on less certain id's. Inevitably there was a time lag, the GIS only works if the data is in there. To speed the process up, there was a 2 phase approach to data entry, with basic context info being entered rapidly and there was emphasis on getting feature plans in particular digitised and on the GIS. We had an office on site with scanners and dedicated data entry computers. Enviro samples never managed to keep pace with the excavations, although we were able to target which samples were prioritised.
In general it worked well at Heathrow, where it was a large set piece excavation and we weren't under massive time pressure to sign off areas. That meant we could do the first phase of interventions and move on to a different area whilst the finds processing and data management caught up, before returning to undertake the second phase. It was also to our advantage that we didnt find massive quantities of finds.... thus meaning the turn around time was quicker
Stansted was another matter. We were under much more time pressure to hand over areas and inevitably found more artefacts. We had to be more flexible in our approach. Fortunately most of the project officers, supervisors and some of the diggers had been through Heathrow and we were able to adapt. In practice we had to identify key assemblages from features as we went for spot dating, and couldnt afford any time lag between the 2 phases of excavation. Fortunately the county mounty was excellent and was a massive help, and i think we did a pretty damn good job, despite the worst winter in my 25 years of digging. Not sure i'd fancy doing it again though
I'm not sure how it worked on the EKA road scheme, although i did hear tales of some lag. i do know they found a lot of archaeology, and plenty of artefacts....
We did on site finds processing and had a finds supervisor who did id's and spot dating, supported by finds specialists who did site visits every week or two to provide advice and confirm dates on less certain id's. Inevitably there was a time lag, the GIS only works if the data is in there. To speed the process up, there was a 2 phase approach to data entry, with basic context info being entered rapidly and there was emphasis on getting feature plans in particular digitised and on the GIS. We had an office on site with scanners and dedicated data entry computers. Enviro samples never managed to keep pace with the excavations, although we were able to target which samples were prioritised.
In general it worked well at Heathrow, where it was a large set piece excavation and we weren't under massive time pressure to sign off areas. That meant we could do the first phase of interventions and move on to a different area whilst the finds processing and data management caught up, before returning to undertake the second phase. It was also to our advantage that we didnt find massive quantities of finds.... thus meaning the turn around time was quicker
Stansted was another matter. We were under much more time pressure to hand over areas and inevitably found more artefacts. We had to be more flexible in our approach. Fortunately most of the project officers, supervisors and some of the diggers had been through Heathrow and we were able to adapt. In practice we had to identify key assemblages from features as we went for spot dating, and couldnt afford any time lag between the 2 phases of excavation. Fortunately the county mounty was excellent and was a massive help, and i think we did a pretty damn good job, despite the worst winter in my 25 years of digging. Not sure i'd fancy doing it again though
I'm not sure how it worked on the EKA road scheme, although i did hear tales of some lag. i do know they found a lot of archaeology, and plenty of artefacts....