DBA, method statement, project design

[Sith]

Sorry to wade in halfway through. Anyone trying geophysical surveys on this one? I've just been involved in a project where a very large area of land was covered by a detailed DBA that revealed absolutely nothing. Neither did aerial photography. however, gradiometry survey of the whole lot revealed at least eight separate archaeological sites spread across the whole area.

In this case, they were widely spaced out leaving plenty of room for lots of evaluation trenches to find nothing. At least the survey allowed the potential significant archaeology to be targetted for evaluation.

If we hadn't take the approach we did, we might have had to spend a lot of time and shedloads of someone else's money trying to sort out the unholy mess that could have ensued.


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

WSIs do not concern me, Curator. I want that site, not excuses

[1man1desk]

Mr Unit,

A lot of your argument appears to be that any development that doesn't include trial trenching and/or an excavation is depriving field archaeologists of work. You also appear to believe that DBAs are only useful as a preliminary to trenching.

In the first place, the purpose of archaeological work in the planning process is not to provide work for archaeologists - it is to show whether the site has archaeological potential and put in place an appropriate mitigation strategy. If you base your advice to your client even partly on the desire to create fieldwork opportunities, that would be serious professional malpractice and (if you advised them that way in the expectation of getting the work yourself) possibly criminal fraud.

In the second place, the DBA (or any other archaeological operation) needs to be approached objectively and without preconceptions as to its outcome. If I knew that the archaeologist carrying out a DBA had decided in advance that they were going to recommend trial trenching whatever they found in the DBA, I would not trust that person's conclusions.

There is a strong suspicion amongst many clients that archaeologists are prone to lining their own pockets, or pursuing their own research agendas, by insisting on making the developer pay for work that is not really necessary in the circumstances of that development. Your attitude seems to confirm that suspicion and contributes to a bad name that we all have to struggle against.

There are many DBAs that demonstrate no need for fieldwork, for instance when the site is shown to have been heavily disturbed in a way that would have destroyed any archaeology (e.g. by opencast mining). If there are undisturbed areas that do contain archaeology, the DBA can provide an opportunity to redesign the development so that it only disturbs previously damaged areas and preserves the intact archaeological area.

Finally, if you really do need to know about the depth of disturbance in a former quarry, you can bet your bottom dollar that the developer will be commissioning a geotechnical ground investigation and you can get the information much better from that than from trial trenching (which would rarely be able to reach deep enough).

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Thanks 1man.. it seems that there is only one person who can't get to grips with the concept.


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

[Unitof1]

Don’t apologise Sith

I did a project -45km linear- once (it was enough I was the muppet who wondered in after the thing started) it had that gephiz thing in although I would suggest that it was a holy inadequate exersise-15metre along centre spread-not continuous coverage, where the easements, asymmetric, went between 45 and 65 metres wide, along with the fieldwalking done with a team of three –discontinuous, targeted evaluations anyway 1third of the big sites eventually excavated were found from watching the five metre scrape back on the left hand side of the easement where we had a 360 undertake the initial strip back for the bulldozers. There were numerous little thin sites which were only ever seen in this small strip. Now these sites went through the gephiz spreds/fieldwalking and it saw nothing.- you could argue why but .. So if you were going to find those two-three other sites in your project which your gephiz has missed I suggest that you had shed loads of evaluation trenches to do and may as well have got on with it from day one-now where to put them- wouldn’t it be bliss just to talk about that. I am anti the random sample or the grid although its not a bad place to start.....

Hello Mr Man

“the purpose of archaeological work in the planning process is not to provide work for archaeologists”

are you suggesting that archaeological work in the planning process should not be done by archaeologists

“There is a strong suspicion amongst many clients that archaeologists are prone to lining their own pockets” thats because clients barely meet the diggers with the trowel but instead meet the...this is barely sport

“There are many DBAs that demonstrate no need for fieldwork”

hosty seems to be under the impression that “rarely seen one without the other” with which I concur. I suspect that that you are referring to schemes under which a dba is used to show that only a few areas have to be targeted because the dba found nothing. Probably using your half the amount of trenches to find twice as much archaeology experience

I had a geotechnical ground investigation holstered on me not so long ago. I was on this plot that backed on to a church nicked from the Catholics but luckily the development was as far from the church as possible- then a hardhat turned up, commandeered the machine and went off to put a three-four metre hole as close to the church boundary as possible Kittens!!! Nothing about it in my spec, obviously I did what all of you would have done......

No opinion Mr Man on the archaeologist doing the fieldwork also doing the dba as well then? How do you find someone to stand in a great big landscape with your dba. Is it a system of mutual admiration or do you rely on an endless stream of desperate fatalists?

[1man1desk]

Posted by Unit of 1:

quote:“the purpose of archaeological work in the planning process is not to provide work for archaeologists”

are you suggesting that archaeological work in the planning process should not be done by archaeologists

No - it should always be done by archaeologists. But, providing work opportunities is not what it is for.

quote:“There is a strong suspicion amongst many clients that archaeologists are prone to lining their own pockets” thats because clients barely meet the diggers with the trowel but instead meet the...this is barely sport

No - the reason for the suspicion is the track record of certain archaeologists of recommending work that is not required, or brow-beating the developer rather than trying to justify the need for the work.
Your own approach - saying that there should always be trial trenching because otherwise diggers don't get a job - contributes to this impression.

quote:“There are many DBAs that demonstrate no need for fieldwork”

hosty seems to be under the impression that “rarely seen one without the other” with which I concur

I suspect that Mr Hosty probably meant that he had rarely seen TT without a previous DBA. I would be very surprised if he hasn't seen many DBAs without subsequent TT.

quote:No opinion Mr Man on the archaeologist doing the fieldwork also doing the dba as well then?

Yes, I do have an opinion, and it depends on the circumstances.
If a stand-alone DBA is required, part of whose purpose is either to determine whether fieldwork is required or determine the scope of fieldwork required, I strongly oppose the idea that it should be done by someone who expects to go on to do any subsequent fieldwork. The commercial expectations of that person could be seen to skew their interpretations.

Sometimes, however, both the need for fieldwork and the appropriate scope are clear without a previous DBA. Under those circumstances, it is appropriate for the fieldwork contractor to do desk-based background research. That is not technically a DBA, but could be described as a desk-based survey. I would normally expect this research to be reported together with the fieldwork itself, rather than separately.

quote:How do you find someone to stand in a great big landscape with your dba. Is it a system of mutual admiration or do you rely on an endless stream of desperate fatalists?

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but if you mean "how do you find someone to do the DBA", there are plenty of consultants, and even if you have a prejudice against consultants you can commission a unit to do the work separately from any fieldwork.
In my own circumstances, I don't need to commission DBAs, because we do integrated Environmental Impact Assessment in-house. For that purpose, we employ lots of different kinds of environmental specialists, including 11 archaeologists.

Your comments about ground investigation suggest very poor liaison at GI design stage and in the field, but they don't address my points about GI.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Jsut to clarify

Here is what I say (albeit to do with buildings.. but it makes the point)

Historic Building Recording
Guidance for Curators and Commercial Archaeological Contractors
East Lothian Council Archaeology Service
13
3. Desk-Based Assessments
3.1. Definition and Purpose of Desk-Based Assessments
The IFA define Desk-Based Assessments as:-
“…a programme of assessment of the known or potential archaeological
resource within a specified area or site on land, inter-tidal zone or
underwater. It consists of a collation of existing written, graphic,
photographic and electronic information in order to identify the likely
character, extent, quality and worth of the known or potential archaeological
resource in a local, regional, national or international context as appropriate”
(IFA 1999).
The purpose2 of Desk-Based Assessments is also defined, by the IFA, as:-
“…to gain information about the known or potential archaeological [historical
and architectural] resource within a given area or site (including 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…”
ELCAS would further define the purpose of DBAs as:-
1. To equip the recorder with sufficient background information about
the development site in advance of going into the field (for example,
expected architectural features or chronological changes);
2. To gain information on the archaeological and historical resource;
and,
3. To put the findings of the survey into context
Therefore the generic term Desk-Based Assessment perhaps should be
further divided into three different types of desk-based research:
1) Archival Appraisal (of predominantly secondary sources)
2) Detailed Archive Research (of predominantly secondary sources but
also some primary source material)
3) Comprehensive Archive Research (of primary and secondary
sources).
2 DBA’s are also undertaken as part of consultancy work and in this case, a DBA may be accompanied by
mitigation recommendations
Historic Building Recording
Guidance for Curators and Commercial Archaeological Contractors
East Lothian Council Archaeology Service
14
3.2. Level of DBA required.
ELCAS policy is that a certain degree of DBA will always be required in
advance of any form of field-work. The purpose of desk-based assessments
is to gain information on the archaeological and architectural resource in
order to make both an assessment of its merit/potential in context, but also
leading to an appropriate level of fieldwork and further research, if necessary
and/or appropriate.
Three types of DBA are defined below with each DBA type enhancing the
previous.
3.2.1. Archival Appraisal:
An archive appraisal should always be undertaken before any form of fieldwork.
It includes a familiarisation with the most available and easily
accessible records such as the National Monuments Record Scotland
(including aerial photographs), National Map Library, Historic Environment
Record/Sites and Monuments Record, Statutory List of Buildings of Special
Architectural or Historic Interest and the Inventory of Gardens and Designed
Landscapes. This level of DBA will equip the recorder with sufficient
background information about the development site, in advance of going into
the field.
3.2.2. Detailed Archive Research:
A more detailed archive research will include an initial archive appraisal and
further research to put the findings of the survey work in context. It will
include a more detailed examination of archived records such as the
National Monuments Record Scotland (including aerial photographs),
National Map Library, Historic Environment Record/Sites and Monuments
Record, Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic
Interest and Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in addition to
the Local Studies Records, the National Archives of Scotland, Estate
Plans/ Town Plans (where available) and Statistical Accounts. This level
of DBA will equip the recorder with sufficient evidence about the
development site to provide an account that complements the fieldwork
report. The archaeological contractor should list what sources will be
consulted in both the Written Scheme of Investigation and final Data
Structure Report.
3.2.3. Comprehensive Archive Research:
A comprehensive archive research builds on the aims and objectives of the
detailed archive research by undertaking an in depth examination of
archived records such the National Monuments Record Scotland (including
aerial photographs), National Map Library, Historic Environment Record/
Sites and Monuments Record, Statutory List of Buildings of Special
Architectural or Historic Interest, Inventory of Gardens and Designed
Landscapes, Local Studies Records, the National Archives of Scotland and
Historic Building Recording
Guidance for Curators and Commercial Archaeological Contractors
East Lothian Council Archaeology Service
15
Estate Plans/ Town Plans (where available) as well as Statistical Accounts.
Further work can be carried out by looking at deeds, wills,
manuscripts, charters, MOD collections, mining records, newspaper
archives, local historical society collections, journals and magazines,
paintings and prints, previous relevant site surveys, Burgh and Local
Authority records, Dean of Guild records etc. The advice of an
architectural historian should also be considered to compliment the
desk-based research undertaken and the findings of the historic
building recording survey3. This level of DBA will equip the researcher
with detailed evidence and records about the site, locale and associated
characters to provide a comprehensive account that can form a distinct and
complete part of any final report. The archaeological contractor should list
what sources will be consulted.
“Understanding a historic building is the first step towards
decisions about management, repair and alteration. By
identifying architectural, historic and archaeological
interest, the analysis of fabric and structure contributes to
successful conservation, which carefully balances the
significance of the building, the owner's requirements and
appropriate techniques.”
Town House, Haddington ALGAO 1997
It should be noted that during the course of appraising what information is
available for a given site, the researcher may identify additional and relevant
sources of information that to collate would fall out with the remit of the level
of DBA required. ELCAS strongly recommend that rather than discounting
this information from inclusion within the DBA report, a summary of the
resources should be listed, thereby allowing the prospective reader to locate
this additional information and/or the curator to recommend further research
work.
3.3. Sources of information
The following sources of information should be used as a matter of course:
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Buildings of Scotland
Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest
Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes
Historic Environment Record/Sites and Monuments Record
The National Library of Scotland
3 If the advice of an architectural historian is a prerequisite to the successful interpretative aspect of the
HBR report this should be clearly stipulated in the Specification Checklist ‘Desk Based Assessment
Level’ field and/or project design.
Historic Building Recording
Guidance for Curators and Commercial Archaeological Contractors
East Lothian Council Archaeology Service
16
Other locations which may provide additional information would include:
Local History Centre (i.e. Haddington (East Lothian), Loanhead
(Midlothian)
The National Library of Scotland (for maps, charters, registers, manuscript
collections, books etc.)
National Archives of Scotland (for genealogical records, public records,
census information etc.)
The General Register Office for Scotland (for family history records,
census information etc.)
National Galleries of Scotland
National Trust for Scotland
Statistical Accounts (1791-1799, 1834 and 1845, 1951-1952, 2004-2005)
Estate Records (for prints and paintings, estate maps and other
documents)

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

[Unitof1]

“rarely seen one without the other” still not sure that the world is littered with dbas that went nowhere.

“If a stand-alone DBA is required, part of whose purpose is either to determine whether fieldwork is required or determine the scope of fieldwork required, I strongly oppose the idea that it should be done by someone who expects to go on to do any subsequent fieldwork. The commercial expectations of that person could be seen to skew their interpretations.”

I always suspected that this was true. I think hosty is trying to say the same thing. I am quite stunned actually. What does it mean

[BAJR Host]

I am more and more baffled...

You would as part of a PoW (Programme of Works) do a DBA (or similar such as Desk Based Survey?)

I would have not as much trouble as 1man at the same company doing both.. after all... if they use commercial expectations to skew or hide elements to gain an advantage.. and I find out... (which I would) then they would be in deep deep trouble...

Mr Hosty is wondering what you suggest.. based upon previous comments would be to just put trenches in... without any form of DBA/DBS or is that not the case... or if you know that archaeology is in a certain area, and you tell the developer to keep quiet..you would remian quiet even if the DC archaeologist did not advise archaeological conditions.

trenches are half the story (especialy in a built enviroment) so do you carry out any form of research prior to digging holes? (or not if the curatorial team does not notice)

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

[troll]

With due respect to all involved-I give up.This is bonkers. My original intention in posting this thread was to highlight the ubiquitous lack of professional standards in report-writing.Or indeed-the complete absence of any writing during a given projects life-trajectory. Whilst this thread is compelling- loose and dillusional analogies including "Muslim approach" and "Catholic..." are leaving a bad taste in my rather large and loud mouth so... I give up.Enjoy.

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

[Unitof1]

salam alicombe Troll we were just breaking through the clouds

Hosty Please get it out of your mind that I go around “knowing” where there is archaeology and advise developers to go ahead and develop by me being able to pull wool over somebody’s eyes within some contract. See it rather as 1 in 40 developments get a condition- therefore without further research a developer has a 1 in 40 likelihood of a condition. All I am doing is giving out that statistic to which we can add that if they do get a condition the likelihood is that it will be a watching brief. –developer goes off puts the application in turns out my advice was “true” tells one or two other developers I get more phone calls.-with a few more finesses it is called PR- Wheres the contract, your dbas and all the rest of what are? PoW WSIs I presume are commissioned and contracted thats what the codes are directed at-“shall not enter into contractual”. Archaeologists exist before the contract or do they (is that an important point) .

Now if I was asked to enter into doing a dba 1man is suggesting that I cant because if I will ramp up the archaeology to be done (I dont think this is true because I presumably dont want the client to go off and find someone else and as you interestingly say you will spot it or would you be impressed if I got the full gold plate off the job) Iman is very much the developer world which is likely to go to excavation, the likely place troll is sitting without a why we here. In Mr mans world the dba is not done by the archaeologist at the pointy end –period. In 1mans world (engineering-solution to everything = build) he has 11 “archaeologists” and their job is to go to public inquires- no trowel required. And little by little the concept of an archaeologist is being sliced into ever smaller disparate pieces, pieces- apparently all in conflicts of interest- so example we are now quite happily advertise for post ex-teams and allow post ex go to tender. So troll paper trail isnt allowed talking to each other as it might have some unfair commercial interest conflict going on or they are being handed documents which were not really intended for them.

I think consultants really like trenches as a baseline, I think that they like making out that they are really expensive. The more trenches that they can show the client that don’t have to be done the more they can justify the benefits they are making for their clients- how else do they workout their charges.

Hosty I suspect that for trenches to do the finding on their own somewhere around 20% coverage, might be more, is required. I think that archaeologists have a lot more work to do on this, particularly feed back in the field. You see a lot of grid patterns which were presumably agreed by the system and then the poor unfortunate goes out and does them. What I would like to see are the people in the field plying some theories and reacting to the outcomes of their observations-topographic, geomorphological, experience, one last one for luck . In as much as gephiz has been mentioned there’s space for augur surveys, micromorph and lidar is getting interesting. it all should be seen a s aid for trenching