Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by vulpes
Is your apparent addiction to paper a side effect of working for a local authority bureaucracy Curator Kid? Good practice does not in my opinion dictate endless repetition and duplication in the case of negative trenches - as anyone who has ever undertaken a large and largely negative evaluation would realise. This comment just marks you out as yet another curator totally out of touch with the practicalities of conducting archaeological fieldwork.
As for Single Context recording, well it's 'horses for courses'. Although it is great in complex, deeply stratified 'urban' situations, it is unecessary and cumbersome on extensive 'rural' sites.
Addicted to paper? Hmm. I think not! 
A "largely negative evaluation" (say, topsoil, subsoil & natural being the only sequence in most trenches), still can have things to say! If there's only cursory record, then that lessens the chances of using the information later to try and assess why the site was largely negative and how this fits in with the wider area. I take your point about endless repetition, and that wasn't what I meant at all (thanks for the support Achingknees!), but at some point on any site, information still needs to be supplied, in order to then take an informed and justifiable archaeological decision not to endlessly repeat it if the same deposits are encountered again.
I have worked on large and largely (or completely!) negative evaluations in the past, on timescale-tight developer-funded sites, and pretty boring most of them were too. But I still did the planning and levelling and photographing of the trenches to the required standards set out in the WSI, and filled in the sheets where new information was forthcoming - such as recording the changes in the natural across areas. It's all potentially useful stuff if you are evaluating areas adjacent to known sites, or in the context of wider prehistoric landscapes for example. Enabling reassessment at a later date is a key consideration too as Monitor Lizard says (Hi ML - I think you enjoyed the stupid 50-60cm foundation trench site as much as I did!). As for being out of touch with the practicalities of conducting archaeological fieldwork - well I'm happy to be so if it means that I can continue to work against poor resourcing, inadequate timescales, overbearing developers and potential drops in standards. 
Going back to Single Context Recording, I agree it can be a cumbersome system on rural sites, and works best on stratified urban deposits. I can't say I'd bother to record a drain like the one Invisible Man describes either - definitely use Museum of London truncation lines there! For a rural prehistoric site I was involved with a while ago, a distinction was made between SC Planning, and SC Recording. This involved collecting the same feature context data (easy to fill in matrix boxes!), but only used a single site plan rather than wasting time on seperate planning sheets. Obviously if any stratification of features was encountered, overlays could be added. It seemed a common-sense approach. It did rather spoil the flip-book thing fun though.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Quote:quote:But I still did the planning and levelling and photographing of the trenches to the required standards set out in the WSI, and filled in the sheets where new information was forthcoming - such as recording the changes in the natural across areas.
And this is precisely where trench sheets come in - as a minumum record for negative trenches. They are more than adequate for recording changes in the natural, modern intrusions and so on. I do it and it is sepcified in mine and my companies WSIs and therefore accepted and acceptable to the curators we deal with. It is standard practice in report writing in my place of work to try to explain why a project was negative (especially as clients may not see the point of costly excercises which yield little or no archaeology). However, I personally do not find that the use of trench sheets hampers this process. Then again, bits of paper are just that, and only reflect the diligence of the person filling them in.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
At the risk of arguing with another curator, never a good move, could I point out that the purpose of an evaluation is so that an informed planning decision can be made not an archaeological decision.
ie will the application be refused
or will it be conditioned or not.
Why there is no archaeological present is in many repsect irrelevant.
I accept that negative evaluations can provide useful data in a broader scale but that is not there purpose. The issue therefore is can a developer be expected to pay for this extra work not required for a planning decision to be made.
Peter
(Who knows that most curators will disagree with me!)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble reconciling comments by curators on this thread and others with my experience. Very very seldom do my primary records ever get looked at by monitors, and certainly I would never be advised on the benefits of context sheets over trench sheets, or anything else so absurd. The only thing that is ever occasionally questioned is the report, while the means of acquiring the information it contains (while complying with the broad requirements of the WSI) is largely up to me. When the report gets questioned it is invariably over typo's or more worryingly why I didn't monitor a part of the site that had previously been machined away by the developer without notification!
Admittedly I tend to do small to medium sized projects which may rank quite low on curators priority list, so I may be seeing only part of the picture. I for one have been bemoaning toothless monitoring my entire career and it seems to be getting worse in my region. (Yorkshire) What do others think?
As for crazy site strategies; well, preservation in-situ, usually between piles, has always struck me as madness, when the preservation part of it is on the say so of the developer! I have done far less work in my historic city and seen far more destructive development that anywhere else I've worked. All down to preservation in-situ and sustainable development policies.
Don't even get me started on the watching briefs. I've lost count of the number of medieval village and town deeply stratified sites I've tried to record under watching brief conditions. Did the curators not expect that kind of strat mext to the medieval church? I despair.
What is others experience? I'm all for naming and shaming of cowboy units, but what about the same for cowboy curators?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Whoo! Bloody hell! Well said, mercenary!
For the record your experiences sound quite similar to my own, in the south. All too often it isn't that the monitoring is toothless, more misguided,and sometimes I feel a little sorry for these characters. However, on other occasions when their only real input into a project is to 'nitpick' at grammar, spelling etc. rather than archaeological content and to pompously declare that they and only they are to make any recommendations for further work, I despair. Similarly the reluctance of curatorial bodies to become RAOs leads to the strange contradiction of unregistered entities reccomending that the best people for the job are RAOs when they themselves are not.
The use of watching brief conditions is, or should be, a major bone of contention. One argument goes that if the curator suspects that there may be significant archaeology present on a site then it should be evaluated. This seems to hold sway in some counties where WBs are a rarity. All too often WBs and the conditions which they are undertaken are of little archaeological value, their only purpose seeming to be to fill the gap between the sites a curator feels merit no response and those that need trenching. However, in some circumstances a 'strip and record' WB may provide a cost effective and archaeologically meaningful alternative e.g. pipeline easements, small extensions. In my position it is often difficult to justify the endless negative WBs undertaken at the whim of curators who feel unable to jsutify trenching and yet demands some sort of response. The clients unfortunately just regard these individuals as wasting their time and money, and I for one find it increasingly difficult to defend their decisions.
'Preservation in situ' in the case of piling seems to be common outside of London and given the evident damage that this practice results in I'm always amazed by this. However, this is something for the curators to crack down on presumably.
Peter Wardle's comments: Are ludicrously developer orientated (as one would expect from a consultant running dog!). Although the end purpose of evaluations is clearly connected with the planning process this is not reason to totally divorce developer led projects from their wider archaeological context. There are such things as Research Agendas (I'm sure you've heard of these, Peter). But (as I pointed out earlier) if you want to view these exercises from a purely client based perspective, you should bear in mind the fact that "clients often don't see the relevance of (and resent paying for) full reports where nothing has been found. Hoever, negative results can be as valuable as results showing archaeological features are present. It is not acceptable simply to state that archaeological remains were not found. Negative results are still important as they indicate the development area may be beyond site limits"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Running dog consultant here.
If my comments are are ludicrously developer orientated it is because that is what PPG 16 and the planning system says. I think the comments about curators are uncalled for.
It should be totally unneccessary to check that records are being compiled correctly by a bona fide archaeological organisation. If it is neccessary then we have in fact a very sorry state of affairs in British Archaeology.
Curators are not being pompous when they require work - that is there job. As for them not being involved in a project what an arrogant statement to say that curators (and consultants for that matter) do contribute to a project. Clearly what we do is not understood by many (cross over to the thread about how much info a diggers needs to know).
I may disagree with curators other some matters but to a person they are hard working and dedicated to their jobs. They are not paid very well either.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Cheers Vulpes,
It's good to seem I'm not the only idealist out there.
I can count on one hand the number of negative watching briefs or evaluations for that matter, I've done in ten years of fieldwork, so justification to the client is not an issue.
Also, I'm a big fan of strip and record WB's. They are being used up here by the more enlightened curators. It's great when a large area of "nothing expected" site is stripped and revealed to be riddled with features. Even the developers know they have a responsibilty then and it always seems to get upgraded with few queries. That is not the case with typical "record the features in the sides of foundation" watching briefs. For that matter I have spent months on the latter type of WB when the former could have been done in weeks. Cost effective for the developer? No way.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
I agree on a number of fronts-Single context systems ideally should be worked through methodically as a rigid structured procedure.I also agree on the "horses for courses" front where it`s clear that in a commercial world, compromises are a fact of life and, are feature/site or condition specific. The "compromise" element of the job is something I`m having a rantette about over on the ppg16 debate (with myself). I also agree that in my experience, consultants and curators can be guilty of wildly underestimating the needs of the archaeology in question and trusting the work of commercial units.Conversely,and mirroring the statement made here by Dr Wardle,the results are not always as were intended. There is a huge chasm between those on site and those not. As a result, the archaeology is short-changed as compromise after compromise dilutes the briefs and specs penned by the grown-ups until the conditions are bearly recognised.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
What I, and I believe Mercenary, am trying to demonstrate is that to a large extent some (not all) of the problems in field archaeology today stem as much from the cowboy nature of some contractors as from the inept and overly dogmatic approach of some curators (and for that matter consultants as well, Peter). All too often IMO this forum is used to give archaeological contractors a kicking as if we are the root of all evils in British field arch. today. No individual or group is above or beyond criticism and I am not alone in my stated concerns. On a separate note - many individuals are hard working - but hard work is no substitute for possessing the necessary skills, experience and judgement to effectively discharge ones responsibilities. Public sector workers (curators) benefit from strong unions, more paid holiday, local govt. pensions and greater job security than those in the private sector. I won't be getting my violin out.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
I've always found it interesting how standards are maintained in the profession, and it's not from the top down as might be expected.
Every Unit I've worked for has had good field practice initiated by the excavators. Not by the Unit Directors, not by the Curators, and certainly not by the consultants. Whether we were allowed to maintain good field practice by said parties was largely dependant on how stubbornly we stuck to our, some would say naive, beliefs.
I certainly did not get into this business to do archaeology badly, but somewhere along the line I've been worn down. I now find myself occasionally called up on iffy techniques by excavators that I'm supervising.
To return this to the original subject, I think this degradation of good practice also applies to the rightly revered single context planning system, hence the multitude of hybrids. Maybe how purely the system is applied is dependant on how many newly trained archaeologists there are on the site!
|
