12th September 2008, 07:30 PM
Posted by Gontopot:
What you refer to as 'in-depth research on comparisons and the wider context' is what I would call essential background reading; my distinction between mitigation and research was really more related to the scope of the fieldwork. I'll give an example, based on a real case some years old.
An infrastructure project was going to remove part of a bog. We commissioned evaluation in the form of palaeoenvironmental coring which identified the depth and profile of the bog and, through a preliminary level of analysis, showed that it had really good palynological preservation covering the period from the immediate post-glacial up to the medieval.
The proposal from the archaeological contractor (a uni-based specialist wetlands unit) was to do a very detailed analysis of the whole 21m depth of cores taken from the deepest, central point in the bog. This would be a really worth-while bit of research, but was going to be pretty expensive.
The impact was going to be the physical removal of a peripheral part of the bog, with a worst-case risk that the water table might drop by a maximum of 0.75m (the likely case was that the water table would not change). The central part of the bog would not be affected, and therefore there was unlikely to be any loss of palaeoenvironmental information.
We put forward a mitigation proposal on the basis of a worst-case scenario, which was agreed without hesitation by both EH and the local curator and designed with the assistance of the Regional Scientific Advisor. The proposal was to do a detailed analysis of the top 1.5m of the core (double the worst-case impact depth), do a full academic publication of that analysis, and leave the rest alone.
We could not justify analysing the full depth, although we would have liked to, because not only was there no predicted impact but there was no risk of an impact. Any works below that depth would therefore constitute 'research' rather than 'mitigation', in the sense that I defined them at the start of this thread.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:While your definitions are certainly spot on, I haven't come across a single county archaeologist (in East Anglia) who would accept that as a bare minimum. Every Research Archive Report/Publication report would simply be sent back asking for you to do more in depth research on comparisons and the wider context of the archaeology. And I have to say I'm glad because even in the 'developer pays' world I like to think that the role of archaeologists isn't just to provide a glorified 'past and present' landscape catalogue rather than greater understanding. No matter what the planning guideline explicitly define.I don't disagree with you at all; I would certainly expect a full academic report too. The point of my post was not to define the scope of work you do, but what the work is ultimately for.
What you refer to as 'in-depth research on comparisons and the wider context' is what I would call essential background reading; my distinction between mitigation and research was really more related to the scope of the fieldwork. I'll give an example, based on a real case some years old.
An infrastructure project was going to remove part of a bog. We commissioned evaluation in the form of palaeoenvironmental coring which identified the depth and profile of the bog and, through a preliminary level of analysis, showed that it had really good palynological preservation covering the period from the immediate post-glacial up to the medieval.
The proposal from the archaeological contractor (a uni-based specialist wetlands unit) was to do a very detailed analysis of the whole 21m depth of cores taken from the deepest, central point in the bog. This would be a really worth-while bit of research, but was going to be pretty expensive.
The impact was going to be the physical removal of a peripheral part of the bog, with a worst-case risk that the water table might drop by a maximum of 0.75m (the likely case was that the water table would not change). The central part of the bog would not be affected, and therefore there was unlikely to be any loss of palaeoenvironmental information.
We put forward a mitigation proposal on the basis of a worst-case scenario, which was agreed without hesitation by both EH and the local curator and designed with the assistance of the Regional Scientific Advisor. The proposal was to do a detailed analysis of the top 1.5m of the core (double the worst-case impact depth), do a full academic publication of that analysis, and leave the rest alone.
We could not justify analysing the full depth, although we would have liked to, because not only was there no predicted impact but there was no risk of an impact. Any works below that depth would therefore constitute 'research' rather than 'mitigation', in the sense that I defined them at the start of this thread.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished