Research be seen as integral to development excavation.

[TimberWolf]

:face-stir:[SIZE=3]A bit long but hopefully some food for thought.

[/SIZE] Having been watching this thread develop for some time it has become increasingly clear that many interlinked topics are being discussed, and some fundamental issues regarding planning led archaeology are not fully understood. Research must be proportionate to the stage that a project has reached and the quantity/quality of the excavated evidence. Far less background research will be necessary when reporting on a few medieval field ditches compared to the full excavation of a Roman villa.

Over the past thirty years and especially since the introduction of PPG16/PPS5 two distinct branches of archaeology have developed. Commercial archaeology tied in to the planning process and non commercial undertaken by local societies and university departments etc. Both branches of archaeology are research orientated and involve collecting data by various means, followed by a period of analysis and research leading to the publication of the results. However the methods employed by the two arms vary considerably.

With the exception of field walking non commercial archaeology is normally conducted in areas of known archaeology, and trial trenching is rarely undertaken. Excavations are undertaken to investigate specific known sites, so it is possible to say in advance what the aim of the project is; to excavate a section across the Roman Road, to excavate the west wing of the manor etc.

On the other hand commercial work is normally a staged programme of work to enable the planners to make informed decisions. Stage 1 is an assessment of the site which can be by a variety of methods, DBA’s, geophysics, field walking and test excavation. These methodologies all produce data that can be analysed and related to the national, regional and local research agendas. The results of the analysis can then be used to determine if a further stage of investigation is necessary. Peer review at this juncture would be total overkill and slow an already often protracted, process down even more.

In the production of a Written Scheme of Investigation for an assessment project, a search of the local HER should always be made to enable an understanding of the wider context of the area and to identify any previous work which has taken place in the vicinity. The aims of an assessment should be
? to identify, investigate and record all standing/buried features of archaeological significance
? to retrieve cultural material to date and aid an understanding of the site
? to take samples of deposits for scientific analysis/dating
? to analyse the results of the above
? to produce a report detailing the findings and their significance to the national, regional and local research agendas, and the potential for further work/research.

What should not be in the aims section of a WSI for an assessment are the specific research topics which could be addressed. If you knew that you would not need to assess the site.

How these aims are to be achieved will be covered in the methodology/reporting sections of the WSI.

Generally a monitoring and recording project will have similar aims to an assessment.

The updated project design for an excavation will need to state what the research aims of the project are, as they will have been identified at the assessment stage. The method of publication of an excavation and the need for peer review will be determined (as already should be done) by the size and complexity of the project. In all cases where a standalone publication is produced as a result of an excavation, peer review should be considered essential.

[BAJR]

@Odinn http://www.socantscot.org/scarf.asp Scottish Archaeological Research Framework

[QUOTE] By the end of the project we will have in place an updatable framework highlighting both current research strengths within Scottish a

[Odinn]

@Odinn http://www.socantscot.org/scarf.asp Scottish Archaeological Research Framework

:face-approve:I should work in Scotland. Two thumbs up. :face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

Archaeology in Yorkshire seems to roll along quite happily without a research agenda, just as well really since it doesn't look like there's ever going to be one.....

[vulpes]

Really? Why? According to the ALGAO website it's in progress. http://www.algao.org.uk/Association/Engl...esFwks.htm And West Yorks published some period agendas this year.

http://www.archaeology.wyjs.org.uk/docum...Agenda.pdf

[BAJR]

Perhaps they could still learn from the Scottish model, where an organic research agenda ensures that the agenda is not a fixed document. As research happens, it evolves.

[vulpes]

and in this weather a ScARF certainly comes in handy

[Dinosaur]

Really? Why? According to the ALGAO website it's in progress. http://www.algao.org.uk/Association/Engl...esFwks.htm And West Yorks published some period agendas this year.

http://www.archaeology.wyjs.org.uk/docum...Agenda.pdf

Have you read them? They're all by different authors so there's little consistency (not even common formatting), so that the entire prehistoric period is covered in a very slim document whereas the Roman one would stop a speeding train, the recommendations in the AS one seem to be weighted towards the author's interests (easy to guess their favourite sites) etc etc. Have to admit not read the Industrial one, printed one off but it's somewhere in my unread reading mountain. Don't get me wrong though, all useful documents (and have been used). A more unified approach would have been helpful though, the way it's been done there's not really any themes-through-time, for instance

Had heard the Yorkshire one had stalled/died again, but pleased to hear there's life in it yet, there's a limit to how far people can keep quoting bits from Manby et al which was an assessment not an agenda, although pretty useful

[vulpes]

I've not read them, no. Although I hail from that way I don't work up there.

Even resource assessments on their own are very useful documents, but I don't feel that any of these things should be prescriptive they're merely points of departure.

I will watch the Scots project with interest, given the difficulties of marshalling the various English regional ones as one off documents, to have a 'living' framework sounds ambitious, and certainly expensive (?). Though the two terms are quite interchangeable currently, at least south of the border. Nice idea though granted, and I would say that Scots heritage reforms seem to have/be progressing a lot better than those dreamt up in Whitehall. :face-approve:

[vulpes]

Of course there are other examples of units doing their bit. Oxford have an academic panel http://thehumanjourney.net/index.php?opt...Itemid=139 and I believe Cotswold do too I think, and no doubt other units. How effective these mechanisms are, I'm not sure, anyone else?