distinctive regional traditions

[P Prentice]

i swear some people deliberatley machine trial trenches too deep but clearly this is not a distinctive regional tradition

[Dinosaur]

A good reason for not targetting ditch intersections and the like during evaluations - curators take note!

Specs from curators frequently compel contractors to do this, I've had to write it into 2 WSIs last week alone, through gritted teeth. I've got a site where the unit who did the evaluation managed to overmachine several critical intersections to the extent that much of the archaeology subsequently area-excavated is now unphaseable and hence largely uninterpretable. Where there is known archaeology (from geophysics or whatever) and full excavation is likely to occur anyway intrusive evaluation should be kept to a bare minimum, all it does is wreck the resource

As a slight aside, we've concluded over the years that, particularly on rural (ie things dug in natural) sites on tricky subsoils, shorter but wider trial trenches score more archaeology than the more commonly used long thin ones - 2m trenches basically don't work, 3m minimum, 4 or 5 better, not sure why - thats another 'curators take note'!

[Dinosaur]

-seems though that the evaluation still led to the area getting excavated ?

The geophysics on its own was quite jaw-dropping enough to justify full excavation, the 'evaluation' was totally unnecessary and it that case actually disastrous.

Digging intersections is sometimes quite handy for working out stratigraphic relationships?

- although I agree about contamination, if the relationship is obvious in plan I usually try to avoid intersections (to keep the finds assemblages 'clean') but curators often insist on it for some reason. Seem to recall that at Stanwick Villa in the '80s David Neal used to avoid digging ditch intersections for the same reason, although that was on pretty sand so relationships were usually pretty obvious in plan

[Unitof1]

so your saying that targeted evaluation following on from geophysics was disarsterus

Digging intersections is sometimes quite handy for working out stratigraphic
relationships?

possibly if one feature has totally infilled before the second feature cuts it and lets have a gap of about 500 years for anything prehistoric but if you have a feature thats still infilling cut by another and then make up a few recuts for both features then all is pish and really the world belongs to cockchafers and bioturbite although it is funny to watch people convincing themslves that they know whats going on and where in post ex you would always take the evidence from the simlpe slot over the intersection. Its like two different sites- slots vie intersections

[P Prentice]

i've always prefered a slot

[Dinosaur]

...whereas the rest of us would like to know the actual relationship

[Dinosaur]

so your saying that targeted evaluation following on from geophysics was disarsterus

certainly was when done by that unit anyway! We'll all get to find out how they go about it when they've finished buying out/undercutting everyone else :face-crying:

[Unitof1]

there is no "actual" relationship- only methodolgy and interpretation

[vulpes]

quite right Unit, quite right.

[BAJR]

yeaaay Vulpes and Unit...
#
What am I saying!