18th September 2008, 09:54 AM
to quote diggingthedirt:
'If excavation is alternatively conceived as research, albeit threat-led research, the cost of the work paid for by the developer can be monitored against the value of the results obtained. The polluter pays, and pays for something that benefits society as a whole, rather than their own needs to discharge a planning condition. Moralise that one. 'But Iâm creating jobs', they may argue, 'building houses, schools, roads, bridgesâ¦' Very true, and there are strong social and economic reasons for constructing this infrastructure. It is only by aligning 'commercial archaeology' with 'research archaeology' that the value of an excavation can be balanced against the decision to develop the site in the first place. The research value of the archaeology weighed against the social and economic value of the development.'
quite.
since there appears to be different definitions of research being used (and apologies if my trying to highlight some incongruities dragged the topic all over the place) I'd like to see what you all think the following is as under 1m1u's definition we maybe shouldn't have done half of what we did:
Major site excavated in City of London, alongside all the normal kind of strat, we discover a previously unknown Roman fort. Ditches, rampart with timber lacework, turrets, kitchen, granaries, latrine, armour -quite nice. Dating is immediately post-Boudiccan revolt. Now alongside the normal assessment and analysis we have to research Roman forts in NW europe for comparitors (nearest structural comparison is in the Rhine area) so we can discuss the remains we have. Also research which units are where in the period in question, and what the political situation was at the time. We also discover during assessment that it throws the conjectured road system out for the whole of the eastern part of the city, so do more research to fix this as best we can. We need to establish the size and plan of the fort so check through published reports and unpublished archives looking for similar remains. We find what appears to be a system of military defences that are later used in the Flavian boom to be the skeleton of the new road layout.
We also discover a major problem with the date range of a key pottery type, we also find a large number of military type sites around London all built in the same year or two that indicate a new basis for the rebuilding of Roman London, and which match the political framework closely. As part of the analysis we develop new techniques for looking at the archives and data and analysing these on a landscape basis, this is planned to lead on to a separate Research Project or PhD.
Now I feel that what we did was the correct amount of research (normal definition). We didn't dig any extra holes to prove anything, in fact the site was one of the heaviest mitigated ever in London, but we took the evidence to its logical conclusion. It is our job to disseminate the site details at an appropriate level. This site had major repercussions for lots of areas of study -if we hadnt researched and written about these then no-one would be any the wiser as it would never get published. Now if our findings generated a new theory on the construction of Roman forts in Neronian Empire, then we would have also written a research paper on that to go in say Britannia. The academics can then (and have already) take on board our evidence and look at wider issues and how it all fits together, but our site archive would frankly be of no use to any academics without our having done our analysis so they can get a handle on what we actually found and what we think it means.
The problems often come when small sites have something that is hugely important, or completely unexpected. At my site the fort merely replaced what would otherwise be there, but we can all think of sites where the best DBA would not have highlighted what was actually found. I worked on a site last month where the DBA said there'd be nothing there, in fact there was a very nice site which will change the archaeology of the area, and will lead to more sites being properly investigated in the area.
'If excavation is alternatively conceived as research, albeit threat-led research, the cost of the work paid for by the developer can be monitored against the value of the results obtained. The polluter pays, and pays for something that benefits society as a whole, rather than their own needs to discharge a planning condition. Moralise that one. 'But Iâm creating jobs', they may argue, 'building houses, schools, roads, bridgesâ¦' Very true, and there are strong social and economic reasons for constructing this infrastructure. It is only by aligning 'commercial archaeology' with 'research archaeology' that the value of an excavation can be balanced against the decision to develop the site in the first place. The research value of the archaeology weighed against the social and economic value of the development.'
quite.
since there appears to be different definitions of research being used (and apologies if my trying to highlight some incongruities dragged the topic all over the place) I'd like to see what you all think the following is as under 1m1u's definition we maybe shouldn't have done half of what we did:
Major site excavated in City of London, alongside all the normal kind of strat, we discover a previously unknown Roman fort. Ditches, rampart with timber lacework, turrets, kitchen, granaries, latrine, armour -quite nice. Dating is immediately post-Boudiccan revolt. Now alongside the normal assessment and analysis we have to research Roman forts in NW europe for comparitors (nearest structural comparison is in the Rhine area) so we can discuss the remains we have. Also research which units are where in the period in question, and what the political situation was at the time. We also discover during assessment that it throws the conjectured road system out for the whole of the eastern part of the city, so do more research to fix this as best we can. We need to establish the size and plan of the fort so check through published reports and unpublished archives looking for similar remains. We find what appears to be a system of military defences that are later used in the Flavian boom to be the skeleton of the new road layout.
We also discover a major problem with the date range of a key pottery type, we also find a large number of military type sites around London all built in the same year or two that indicate a new basis for the rebuilding of Roman London, and which match the political framework closely. As part of the analysis we develop new techniques for looking at the archives and data and analysing these on a landscape basis, this is planned to lead on to a separate Research Project or PhD.
Now I feel that what we did was the correct amount of research (normal definition). We didn't dig any extra holes to prove anything, in fact the site was one of the heaviest mitigated ever in London, but we took the evidence to its logical conclusion. It is our job to disseminate the site details at an appropriate level. This site had major repercussions for lots of areas of study -if we hadnt researched and written about these then no-one would be any the wiser as it would never get published. Now if our findings generated a new theory on the construction of Roman forts in Neronian Empire, then we would have also written a research paper on that to go in say Britannia. The academics can then (and have already) take on board our evidence and look at wider issues and how it all fits together, but our site archive would frankly be of no use to any academics without our having done our analysis so they can get a handle on what we actually found and what we think it means.
The problems often come when small sites have something that is hugely important, or completely unexpected. At my site the fort merely replaced what would otherwise be there, but we can all think of sites where the best DBA would not have highlighted what was actually found. I worked on a site last month where the DBA said there'd be nothing there, in fact there was a very nice site which will change the archaeology of the area, and will lead to more sites being properly investigated in the area.