24th June 2014, 01:13 PM
Marc,
there are DBA's and DBA's. Good and bad. Frankly a DBA is a necessary part of what falls into 'preliminary' works in the real world of commercial archaeology.
The process seems to vary with project, type of development, region and type of landscape the project transects.
Some DBA's I've seen are a useless scrap of paper that is just a table of what is on the HER. These are useless to any developer except where the planning authorities don't know/care what is happening.
Good DBA's take into account the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains being present and things like map and document searches, geophysical survey and walk over surveys, fieldwalking, testpitting etc etc which in themselves can be exceptionally important prospecting tools in archaeology even if the archaeological mitigation goes no further.
I agree that often geophysical survey results need testing by trial-trenching, especially the 'blank areas'. But without other information evaluation by trial trenching is a pointless waste of effort.
I think you may be missing the reason for doing a DBA, or maybe you've never seen a good one?
Also sometimes a DBA can find/protect/record archaeological evidence far better than trial trenching (which is often just a shot in the dark). Think of an offshore wreck site, or WWII site that is on an old aerial photograph.
In the pit is correct with respect to earlier sites. How about a preserved prehistoric landscape over several square kilometers? How can trial trenching help here.
Surely the investigation/advice should fit the site?
As to dirty fingernails indicating expertise..........I would say that only indicates a lack of personal hygiene. }
there are DBA's and DBA's. Good and bad. Frankly a DBA is a necessary part of what falls into 'preliminary' works in the real world of commercial archaeology.
The process seems to vary with project, type of development, region and type of landscape the project transects.
Some DBA's I've seen are a useless scrap of paper that is just a table of what is on the HER. These are useless to any developer except where the planning authorities don't know/care what is happening.
Good DBA's take into account the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains being present and things like map and document searches, geophysical survey and walk over surveys, fieldwalking, testpitting etc etc which in themselves can be exceptionally important prospecting tools in archaeology even if the archaeological mitigation goes no further.
I agree that often geophysical survey results need testing by trial-trenching, especially the 'blank areas'. But without other information evaluation by trial trenching is a pointless waste of effort.
I think you may be missing the reason for doing a DBA, or maybe you've never seen a good one?
Also sometimes a DBA can find/protect/record archaeological evidence far better than trial trenching (which is often just a shot in the dark). Think of an offshore wreck site, or WWII site that is on an old aerial photograph.
In the pit is correct with respect to earlier sites. How about a preserved prehistoric landscape over several square kilometers? How can trial trenching help here.
Surely the investigation/advice should fit the site?
As to dirty fingernails indicating expertise..........I would say that only indicates a lack of personal hygiene. }