DBA, method statement, project design

[1man1desk]

quote:I could try to explain to you that consultants (on the whole) do not see their role as 'to reduce the amount of digging to be done' but I don't really think that you want to listen to that argument and well life's too short and I've got better things to do today.

I'm with you entirely Beamo, and I have pretty much given up on discussions involving that particular participant.
Given his expressed views about consultants, it is interesting to note that his own approach seems to be to maximise the amount of digging to be done - not so much for archaeological reasons, but just to maximise the amount of employment for archaeologists, irrespective of whether the work itself is actually needed.
That is just the kind of attitude that gives archaeologists a bad name and makes developers, landowners etc. suspicious of us.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

I am baffled by much of what Unit of One says.. concerned at the attitudes presented and would like to see discussion rather than beating very long standing BAJR contributers into stultified and undeserved silence.

If there is a point then say it... rather than obscure references to nuns and chilli peppers .. or (as 1Man says) making archaeologists look bad before developers.

PS... New thread on that subject.. sensible talk only !

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Unitof1]

“is your objection to "dumping" in a church archaeological or theological - its not an objection more a muse”

It does appear that these committees were there to contemplate number twos-I imagine that there is a potential for a phd (most certainly at an theological oxbridge collage) for the putting of bogs in churches controversy which I feel is rather recent with a bit going on over time –particularly from prolapsed crones wondering why they were not being catered for or was it part of the thrill

I have had a few weeks to contemplate this very important aspect of my work and be associated with such things (and fortunately I did it without the 2004 document http://www.britarch.ac.uk/adca/documents...eNote1.pdf
or I might have lost the plot by now) I may as well throw my fundamental incredulity of people who have a large imaginary friend in the sky and I “believe” that psychiatrists were invented for them although I dont believe that it is that relevant in light of my archaeological professionalism.

This professionalism can’t help feel that we have very important local archaeological environments in which we are tolerating to the detriment of archaeology a bunch of loonies

In the country most of the remaining fundamentals would appear to still want to exist at the Victorian folk fantasy parish level and maintain some of the most ridiculous architectural carbuncles for which no planner would ever give permission (or regs) in this day and age and which gave direct rise to the cult of Walt Disney. That they have a glut of dilapidated buildings which has seriously ruined their reputations and are attempting some last ditched bunkering around cathedrals and have come up with a cunning plan involving bogs (which they never had before as they are used to expecting the people to urinate in their seats-(bring back the days of church ale says I-they who pissed the most go to heaven) to repopulate the landscape.

Now these people are also some of the best pension grabbers that this country has ever known. They have had centuries of tithes and landholdings –glebes- but they are all gone now “it would appear” (chancel repairs) and recently have found away to access the funds like “heritage” lottery by doing various penances (like cuddling archaeologists)- nothing wrong with that and appear to have identified the not new problem of putting a long thin linear through a likely skeleton and in a likely cemetery and its likely always has been a dozy -and come up with getting archaeologists involved with nice reiterations of our practises giddy stuff-why

“society that cares for the dead demonstrates that it values life”!!.

Now the Romans they put the bodies outside the city wall beyond and in the road side ditch possibly because they were aware of the problems of guaranteeing “final resting” places and the likelihood that long thin linears might one day appear as the salvation of a small traditional culture using heritage management to rescue it

Somewhen culture decided to bring a thing (might have amalgamated several things) now called a church within the core of a thing possibly called village and bury “their” people around-ish it OR did they? Englands pastures green now to have a dribbly bottom at the core of the parish? Why did churchisum in this country not evolve to contemplate long thin linears passing through its all too obviously strategically positioned reminders of death? I am missing something. Its like the church is trying to turn these places into homes. Is it like they are trying to develop these sites for a house market? call it making homes in churches acceptable?

we could go down the route that traditionally bones disturbed by diggings in church yards were simply collected and put back in a hole or charnel pits. What’s going to happen to this tradition? Why have archaeologists sought to justify presence in churches through disturbance of human remains rather any other reasons-wont this affect our focus.

Then there is the sitting in the church tower contributing to the campanologists renditions following the preceding nights celebratory vindaloo. This committee defiantly contemplated putting bogs in churches but only the implications for disturbing the dead and seem to have stuck to direct physical remains –they dont not say anything about the theological implications of anybody flushing excreta in such an environment or having it seep into the ground. Is it that they will be long gone. I imagine in years to come the new TV framed genre of people flushing at weddings and funerals and as for horror films- endless possibilities of things reaching for your nethers

Redundant churches have been turned into homes presumably those without a bog were sold at a poor price- ha thats why I was there

[Unitof1]

Boo...

its early doors.... am on the reme martins and have been four metres down a well for the last two days --------heaven

Troll meets small unit- how small- DBAs are for developers, if they are too stupid to get one done before they buy .... them

[troll]

Unitof1-I don`t get it........

:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Unitof1]

Sorry Troll. It was the concept that small is not beautiful in your opening gambit. I think the problem is much worse the bigger the unit (than 1) the bigger the scheme. I also have a bit of problem with the concept of dbas as if they are a great big archaeology love in where the archaeologists get together at the earliest opportunity to help everybody do the best by the archaeology-which somehow includes the diggers- when its a dog eat dog world

I see dbas as confidential assessments of what the likely costs are based on what the curators have done (or not) elsewhere/abouts the site against whats possibly at the site and how you would do it and by it I mean excavate. Without an evaluation they are pretty much pointless guesses about curators likely attitude. I mostly tell my clients not to mention archaeology and see if the curators impose conditions. There again I mostly work small sites but I have built up a small cliental who seem to think it worth their while asking me for an “assessment”-“come and have a look and tell me what you think.” Quite often the information is used to beat up the seller. Having done the research I feel ready for the site. In truth I think writing it all down as potentially helping the competition or providing evidence that can be used against me.

[troll]

Greetings unit. For me, a paper trail allows for the systematic planning of projects within a professional context.It also allows for the often disparate contributions to any given project to be included within a body of checkable data. In all honesty, commercial archaeology does as it pleases anyway and is answerable to no-one.Professionally drafted reports have to be a must if we are to stand any chance of moving away from the scenario where grey-sock and sandal 70s diggers (now directors) continue to treat the finite resource as a good day out and a financial asset.There are too many units operating without adequate checks and balances already.There are also units who can move from the birth of a project through to completion without as much as one decent written document. I have to disagree sir- projects undertaken without paperwork are little more than heritage rape and an attempt to carry out that rape in the full knowledge that one can escape recourse for ones actions.Tiz called a cover-up sir

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

I've got to agree with Troll in most of what he says about the value of reports - absolutely essential; without proper reporting at every stage, archaeological work is simply licensed vandalism. Without proper collation, analysis and reporting of existing data at pre-fieldwork stage, there is no basis for demonstrating the need for fieldwork or for designing a fieldwork programme. That is what DBAs are primarily for.

Unit of 1, you seem to have a very strange idea of what a DBA is and what it is for - generally they don't do the things you suggest they do at all.

The approach you advocate appears to be to help prospective developers to conceal archaeology from the curator. This goes against the whole ethos of the planning system, under which the developer is supposed to make sure that the local authority has the information it needs to make a properly considered decision.

I may have misunderstood you, because I do find much of what you say difficult to understand. I hope that is the case, because I would have to consider such an approach highly unethical and possibly illegal. It would be the attitude of someone who does not actually care about the archaeology itself, but only about opportunities to earn money from it.

BAJR Host, I hope that this post stays within the AUP - I'm trying hard to do that, although tempted to use some much stronger wording!

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Paul Belford]

I am surprised that Unitof1 is not in attendance at the Curatorial Practice in Church Archaeology course that is running as we speak on the floor below me in my building. It sounds like he might learn something.

He would also be very welcome to come upstairs and see what proper archaeology is all about.

[Unitof1]

Ethos-archaeology would rather have an evaluation (by trench) report than a DBA.

Quite often when I read so called dbas in the HER- normally for big schemes with lots of vested interest they seem to me to be propaganda -often embedded in EIAs- showing the potted archive travels of some out of town assistant consultant (unnamed) working in an “environmental team” for an engineering consultant appointed possibly by the civil engineering contractor who was appointed probably by a preferred contractor scam by some other developer or governing authority who need the consent before they can lie about the cost benefit analysis in order to get money out of some elusive regeneration fund.-not much use for a digger.

I know of a recent example of dba where my ordnance survey map had Anglo-Saxon Cemetery written on it that the propaganda magnificently failed to notice. They also failed to notice some bloody big landscape features that you would not believe (I wont say what as I suspect that detail might give the site away to the you know whos) That particular scheme went through four different units, six if you include the geophiz scam and want to call the consultants archaeologists (seven- I forgot the curators). They had different units doing the fieldwalking (upset the locals) evaluations (in the wrong place) and the excavations (oh and the main designated area for excavation –bulldozed). And as for the disparate bits of paper more paper maze than trail. I would challenge anybody to find them let alone put them together. Its hard to imagine a red carpet for diggers in all that.

surely any curator should look at all commercial archaeologists as defiantly working for the financial interests of their clients and react accordingly. It makes no sense to me to pretend that I am some independent curator. Without an evaluation trench I dont think I am concealing anything. –I could go round saying that every site contains the treasure of the ancients or not but I think I should be treated as a plank

was the church made to have consultant archaeologist because if left to their own devises they would more than averagely trash archaeology (yes). Do you think we will get eighty trenches a year out of the eighty consultant “archaeologists”. (No)