Nearly ?3m of taxpayers cash spent on Anglesey archaeological dig

[Unitof1]

what I dont understand is if the developments not being used-is that the whole site? how come its getting all these awards

http://www.ceequal.com/awards_038.htm

for sustainable something or other. Nice to see that three millions of their monies gets you two open days. That must be worth some kind of award in its self.

These seem to be the main characters left, http://photonicanglesey.blogspot.com/2011/09/parc-cybi-digging-up-dirt.html


if I had any concerns it would be this methodology from these chancers

http://www.heneb.co.uk/tymawr/tymawrintro.html

During the planning stages of the development a picture of the likely buried archaeological remains at the Parc Cybi site was built up. This understanding came from a combination of documentary research and archaeological field evaluations, including geophysical surveys and small-scale trial trench excavations.

.......

The archaeological strategy employed at this site adheres to a modern approach for professional excavations known as Strip, Map and Sample. This approach allows for resources (both time and money) to be directed to answering important questions about how past communities interacted and affected their surroundings. The first stage of the Strip, Map and Sample involves the stripping, by machine (often a JCB of large areas of topsoil and sub soil to expose buried archaeological remains. These features are then mapped digitally and small-scale investigations are carried out to ascertain their broad nature and possibly their date. Once a reasonable understanding of the layout and character of the site has been achieved, the archaeologists devise a plan of further more detailed investigations.

presumably the evaluation was inadequate-small scale-, then opening up "large areas" a bit of a fait accompli.

Strip, Map and Sample is that "modern" for trash for cash with little in the way of preservation in situ?

[Wax]

So unique historic assets were removed for the sake of a development the locals did not want and now it's built it isn't used. Urggggh!!!

Why do the public put up with this?

Let's hope the excavations added significantly to the archaeological knowledge of the area.

[trowelfodder]

Actually Unit Strip, Map and Sample is an incredibly effective method of dealing with archaeological remains on a large site. Rather than opening up small keyhole areas the site was stripped in large stages and every machine had an archaeologist watching at all times. Any possible features identified were surveyed in using a total station and there was a mobile team within the larger team who would use the survey data to evaluate all features. If archaeological they were recorded as such and planned, sectioned, context sheets filled in, samples taken if necesary.... and so on.

When larger concentrations of archaeological remains were encountered then a larger team would be mobalised to carry out complete excavation. These larger areas included a stone built Iron Age village, a neolithic house, burnt mound, early christian cemetery, beaker cemetery, pos. henge, post med farmstead.....

Being able to excavate these sites in their entirity has yeilded so much information that if all we had done was expose and then cover with teram. As you well know we have no real idea how effective this method of conservation is long term and given the amount of landscaping carried out there would have been a great threat to the archaeology.

And as for the evaluation stage being small scale and inadiquate the developers were well aware of the archaeological potential of the site - it has a neolithic chambered tomb at one end and a bronze a standing stone at the centre! The evaluations showed there was archaeology on the site and that there was high potential for it to prove highly costly.

Archaeologists do not decide where a developer is going to build - we simply deal with what is found once a decision is made. The whole site has turned out to be a disaster from a developers point of veiw as the plots have yet to be bought, but this is the way the economy has gone. We are in a recession! The archaeology was done wholesale at the start of the project to make the site more attractive to potential clients as otherwise they would have to take the risk that archaeological remians could be found during the building of units leading to unforseen costs. Had the archaeology been done this way it would never have given such a complete and coherent picture as the record would have developed piecemeal with gaps.

Unit you are way out of order sugguesting that this site was "trashed for cash" when you know nothing about the standard of work carried out and the integrity of those involved. And the further work to eat up more taxpayers money - postex which again the costs were explained before hand!!!

And Wax this site has been amazing from an archaeological point of view and has and will have a significant increase in our knowledge of the area.

A poor descision by the development agency is not archaeologists fault and the journalists who published this awful report should be ashamed of themselves. We are not to blame and inflamitry articles like this totally misrepresent the profession.

[Wax]

Thanks to Drunky and Trowelfodder, their posts have made it clear the archaeology needed to be done and required the levels of funding mentioned in the article. I think we are going to see far more of this type of article I am even beginning to wonder if there is a deliberate campaign to try and show archaeology and heritage as an expensive luxury holding back much needed development. (for the first time in my life I am beginning to believe in Government conspiracies). Rather than defend the archaeology perhaps we should question the need for such "White elephant" developments.

[Drunky]

Strip, Map and Sample is that "modern" for trash for cash with little in the way of preservation in situ?

Preservation in-situ is that when you agree with the developer that an area won't be touched you take your money and leave, then they do what they want with out any archaeologist there , at lest that pays your bills well down Unit,

My experience of 'Preservation in-situ and i am not talking about north Wales, is that its a collection on back slapping words that no-one can complain about and if its in advance of a development that happens with no-one watching, at lest with the Strip and Map carried out at this site, once archaeology was encountered it was all hand dug to natural from that point on.

Preservation in-situ just an excuses to get paid your set price then forget about it

[Marcus Brody]

I am even beginning to wonder if there is a deliberate campaign to try and show archaeology and heritage as an expensive luxury holding back much needed development. (for the first time in my life I am beginning to believe in Government conspiracies). Rather than defend the archaeology perhaps we should question the need for such "White elephant" developments.

I'm also beginning to wonder whether recent stories of this type may be part of a larger trend to try to discredit archaeology. However, if the aim is to show that archaeology is holding back development, this is perhaps not the best site to use as an example. The presence of archaeology on the site demonstrably didn't stop the development, and it's not being suggested that the cost of dealing with archaeology is the reason why the industrial park stands empty. Indeed, as trowelfodder said, the reason for dealing with all the archaeology up front was specifically to try to make it more attractive to potential businesses, so that the seller would be able to flog the plots with a guarantee that there'd be no additional archaeological costs.

[GnomeKing]

Strip-Map-Sample dogma has a lot to answer for.

This document is a prime suspect :

http://www.persona.uk.com/kent/Core_docs/CD-06_7_2.pdf

Complete self-referential back-slappery - absolutely flawed as research, and shamelessly promoting of a certain 'way-of-doing-things'.

Back on topic: certainly archaeology is an easy target for Media Shysters...however archaeology itself is not without its own problems of Corporatism, and its right to constantly question whether planning polices + associated contractors are 'Pulling Off a Fast one.'

[trowelfodder]

There seems to be a worrying trend for producing literature to support the assertion that archaeology is damaging the economic recovery by putting expensive obstacles in the way of developers. This can then be supported with an example of how many more teachers, policemen or nurses could be hired for the money spent on archaeology.

The profession is under attack and we need to act now to set the record straight.

[Sparky]

Trowelfodder, To disagree with you on only one point, archaeologist can (and should) advise their clients that the costs of excavation and subsequent post-excavation assessment, analysis, publications, may be prohibitively expensive. In fact, I would go as far as saying that this is best practice. In such events, it would be prudent of the archaeological adviser / consultant / manager to advise their client of likely costs and to suggest possible changes to the footprint, if possible. The fact that planning was granted presumably on various conditions including archaeology, would have also hightlighted this was going to be a costly exercise. But without knowing the details of the archaeological management structure, I wouldn't like to say who should have been advising the client.

Finally, for the archaeological cost to be just under 30% of the total project cost suggests that either something was very wrong with communicating the rising cost to the developers, or that the developers were willing to make the sacrifice.

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]1. Finally, for the archaeological cost to be just under 30% of the total project cost suggests that either something was very wrong with communicating the rising cost to the developers, or that the developers were willing to make the sacrifice.
[/SIZE]

I think it means that we-self apointed archaeologists- are masters of the univers

[SIZE=3]Strip, Map and Sample is an incredibly effective method of dealing with archaeological remains on a large site
[/SIZE]

Why restrict this to large sites, how about insy wincy little ones which have never had an evaluation. Like watching briefs for little old ladies.- take pictures of the clouds

It would be interesting to “read” what the “recommendations” were made from the

[SIZE=3]documentary research and archaeological field evaluations, including geophysical surveys and small-scale trial trench excavations
[/SIZE]

were they –“small scale”=3milliom for a site which nobody wants

I smell pension grabbers…living with pension grabbers,,,, born of pension grabbers

what is an evaluation-[SIZE=3]eh..... they run off to read map2[/SIZE]

-but I would rather know what the tendering process was for this [SIZE=7]farss[/SIZE]