Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
29th April 2010, 04:40 PM
Just had a lovely email from an organisation that supply mapping and similar information (I won't say who, not for fear of it being a breach of AUP, but because I don't want to accidently advertise them) containing a survey regarding the future provision of a proposed 'archaeological heritage report'. While this in itself seems lauable and harmless enough and it constantly states that this would not replace a DBA as required by an LPA it does make me slightly concerned.
I'm increasingly dismayed by the quality of what I would call 'sausage machine' DBAs - you turn the handle and out pops another one. These typically just contain the HER data, perhaps information on SMs/Conservation Areas etc, a long winded history of the area in question, but very little interpretation or discussion of the archaeological potential. They must be cheap, since a lot of what they contain is simply regurgitated from the HER (another reason for the sausage metaphor) and yet curators regularly accept them despite the fact that I would argue that they are not really fulfilling the brief.
To draw these two things together - if this 'archaeological heritage report' became widely available how long before a slight tweak and it becomes an acceptable DBA? How long before it is putting more people out of work? There is a lot of talk on this forum about the quality of field work, but if the DBA ain't done right in the first place it potentially has very large knock-on effects for the fieldwork.
I'm sure many more of you will be asked to participate in the same survey very soon.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
29th April 2010, 04:56 PM
maybe if an interpretation of the new PPS5 is that all applications should have an historic environment statement then maybe it will create jobs for a lot more suasage makers and this type of thing will evolve. Personally think that all dbas are no replacement for evaluation I would put an evaluation against anybodies interpretation or discussion of the archaeological potential anytime anywhere.
I'll show you an evaluation to make you change your mind
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
29th April 2010, 05:09 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:maybe if an interpretation of the new PPS5 is that all applications should have an historic environment statement then maybe it will create jobs for a lot more suasage makers and this type of thing will evolve. Personally think that all dbas are no replacement for evaluation I would put an evaluation against anybodies interpretation or discussion of the archaeological potential anytime anywhere.
I'll show you an evaluation to make you change your mind
Eerrm, when I write a DBA it's usually to justify doing an evaluation, where there's any chance of justifying one at all (middle of an old land-fill site sometimes doesn't wash with either the client or the curator), in what universe do you operate where either one or the other occurs??? :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
29th April 2010, 05:09 PM
Good topic!
I recently read an EIA where the consultant, not an archaeologist, merely provided a map regression supplied by a well known old map company and presumed that would do the job. Needless to say, this provoked a condition to produce an accurate and specific DBA before further conditions would be considered.
Saying that, last week I read a DBA which was probably one of the best I have ever had the privilledge to. Something worthy of aspiration.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
29th April 2010, 09:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 29th April 2010, 09:50 PM by trainedchimp.)
Dinosaur Wrote:Eerrm, when I write a DBA it's usually to justify doing an evaluation, where there's any chance of justifying one at all (middle of an old land-fill site sometimes doesn't wash with either the client or the curator), in what universe do you operate where either one or the other occurs??? :face-huh:
Shurely Shome Mishtake - that should read 'when I write a DBA it's to assess the significance of the archaeological resource, understand the likely effects of the development and determine whether further evaluation is required' rather than 'justify doing an evaluation'.
Theoretically, the need to establish 'significance' would make it impossible for a curator to accept a sausage machine DBA without a decent amount of synthesis and discussion of, er, well, significance...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
30th April 2010, 03:01 AM
I think the important thing is that it is understood what a DBA is and what it does: DBA 'Desk-based Assessment' - (as opposed to FBA 'Field-based Assessment' or UnitofOneBA - 'I have my own agenda-based Assessment'....).
In all cases I would initally skip the supporting data and jump straight to the Assessment statement and its recommendations (the best designed DBAs normally have this precised on page 1). After finding out where the report is heading, I would then go back over the text and review the evidence, the sources and scope of the evidence considered and how the report arrives at its conclusions. A 'DBA' without a 'train of evidence', conclusion and recommendations is not to my mind a DBA....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
30th April 2010, 08:57 AM
trainedchimp Wrote:Shurely Shome Mishtake - that should read 'when I write a DBA it's to assess the significance of the archaeological resource, understand the likely effects of the development and determine whether further evaluation is required' rather than 'justify doing an evaluation'.
Theoretically, the need to establish 'significance' would make it impossible for a curator to accept a sausage machine DBA without a decent amount of synthesis and discussion of, er, well, significance...
From a commercial archaeology contractor's point of view, when writing a DBA it's surely better to ham-up the likelihood of the presence of archaeology (albeit some sites are a lost cause) in order to generate the potential for further investigation on the ground, be it trenching, geophysics, survey, fieldwalking, GI monitoring or whatever, so yes, wider research is always desirable and often produces wierd results. It's then for the curator to rein-in the archaeological contractor's enthusiasm, if they can be bothered...
People who routinely produce sausage-machine DBAs saying 'there's nothing known within 500m of the site so no need for further evaluation' should be taken out and shot (no, no, no, sorry, given a stern talking to!) for the good of the rest of us trying to make a living, it's quite often those sites that produce the unexpected exciting stuff  !
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
30th April 2010, 09:42 AM
Ham up? Forgive me, but I can't help feeling that this is a little unprofessional! Presumably the IfA will have a view? I must just go and check the standards and guidance...
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
30th April 2010, 11:16 AM
Quote:A 'DBA' without a 'train of evidence', conclusion and recommendations is not to my mind a DBA....
well said Kevin...
and as invisible says... lets check the Standards and Guidance..
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...s/dba2.pdf
Quote:The purpose of desk-based assessments is to gain information about the known or potential archaeological resource within a given area or site (including the presence or absence, character and extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and relative quality of the potential archaeological resource), in order to make an assessment of its merit in context, leading to one or more of the following:
• the formulation of a strategy to ensure the recording, preservation or management of the resource
• the formulation of a strategy for further investigation, whether or not intrusive, where the character and value of the resource is not sufficiently defined to permit a mitigation strategy or other response to be devised
• the formulation of a proposal for further archaeological investigation within a programme of research
My bolds..
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
30th April 2010, 12:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 30th April 2010, 12:39 PM by Dinosaur.)
the invisible man Wrote:Ham up? Forgive me, but I can't help feeling that this is a little unprofessional! Presumably the IfA will have a view? I must just go and check the standards and guidance...
Perhaps not the best phrase! But the whole point of a DBA is surely, from an archaeological point of view, to highlight whether there is any possibility of the presence of archaeology within a site. I've seen far too many where people have just said 'there's cellars on this site, ergo there can't possibly be any archaeology surviving' and the site's then been written-off without anyone actually bothering to check what's in between the cellars. I've done several jobs in the last couple of years where we had a load of archaeology next door to areas previously not even looked at due to 'insufficiently optimistic' DBAs. Conversely, there's an Iron Age enclosure site we 'optimistically' trial trenched years ago and found a big ditch with loads of stuff, which the contractor who then got the excavation phase wrote-off because the middle was a bit truncated....makes you weep....:face-crying:
|
