19th January 2007, 02:08 PM
I have found fieldwalking/geephiz named in ifa evaluation standards in an appendix- hardly a standard for fieldwalking and I suspect the term âwalkoverâ of being consultant speak for a site visit by a consultant who will do an impression of âfield scanningâ. I would suspect that very little archive is produced. (fieldwaking on pipelines now theres a standard...)
âthe idea that progressing straight to wide scale evaluation trenching would work out cheaper for a client than producing a DBA and conducting non-intrusive types of evaluation, which subsequently inform the need for trenching, their position and the total area investigated is questionable.â
The clients will always get cheap archaeology because of the competitive market-we dont have to worry about that! The problem is that the standards of all conditions are set are so low that we get crap archaeologist confused with pointless and inadequate conditions (and none at all) masquerading as archaeology set by the authorities.
As 1mans peepeeG says. âThis sort of evaluation is quite distinct from full archaeological excavation. It is normally a rapid and âinexpensive operationâ, involving ground survey and small-scale âtrial trenchingâ
Somewhere along the line everybody has decided that âinexpensiveâ is âexpensiveâ
âDBA and conducting non-intrusive types of evaluationâ are absences of evidence methods of assessments and I from an earning a living from digging point of view dont see them as âarchaeologyâ. I see bagging contexts with a trowel in a trench as archaeology and am willing to accept that as mitigation if needs be.....not another DBA document in the HER
As 1man has pointed out desktops in peepeeG is a product devised for the developer to use (for assessment of potential cost liabilities and they should have got it done before they bought the land and used it to haggle the price) rather than a request from a curator, as a form of mitigation, who is trying to get out of placing a full and juicy condition on the consent after having had a full and juicy evaluation. All the flaffing is about second guessing what the curators might put on which is where we work out the cost of the archaeology for the client.
Does a curator need a desktop? peepeeG intends them for the developer I feel a Standard coming on -something like an absence of evidence is a requirement for evaluation trenches -Beamo
Say NO to post determination watching briefs without a full evaluation
Preservation in situ- I have been on one too many sites where the preserved area was used to put all the services and soakaways through
"A few years ago I arranged the evaluations for a road scheme that crossed a county boundary. On one side, the curator wanted a fixed-size sample arranged randomly, ignoring geophysics results. On the other side, by agreement with the curator, we used previous information (including geophysics) to target our trial trenches. With a sample about half the size in % terms, we found more than twice as much archaeology."
there is no hope
âthe idea that progressing straight to wide scale evaluation trenching would work out cheaper for a client than producing a DBA and conducting non-intrusive types of evaluation, which subsequently inform the need for trenching, their position and the total area investigated is questionable.â
The clients will always get cheap archaeology because of the competitive market-we dont have to worry about that! The problem is that the standards of all conditions are set are so low that we get crap archaeologist confused with pointless and inadequate conditions (and none at all) masquerading as archaeology set by the authorities.
As 1mans peepeeG says. âThis sort of evaluation is quite distinct from full archaeological excavation. It is normally a rapid and âinexpensive operationâ, involving ground survey and small-scale âtrial trenchingâ
Somewhere along the line everybody has decided that âinexpensiveâ is âexpensiveâ
âDBA and conducting non-intrusive types of evaluationâ are absences of evidence methods of assessments and I from an earning a living from digging point of view dont see them as âarchaeologyâ. I see bagging contexts with a trowel in a trench as archaeology and am willing to accept that as mitigation if needs be.....not another DBA document in the HER
As 1man has pointed out desktops in peepeeG is a product devised for the developer to use (for assessment of potential cost liabilities and they should have got it done before they bought the land and used it to haggle the price) rather than a request from a curator, as a form of mitigation, who is trying to get out of placing a full and juicy condition on the consent after having had a full and juicy evaluation. All the flaffing is about second guessing what the curators might put on which is where we work out the cost of the archaeology for the client.
Does a curator need a desktop? peepeeG intends them for the developer I feel a Standard coming on -something like an absence of evidence is a requirement for evaluation trenches -Beamo
Say NO to post determination watching briefs without a full evaluation
Preservation in situ- I have been on one too many sites where the preserved area was used to put all the services and soakaways through
"A few years ago I arranged the evaluations for a road scheme that crossed a county boundary. On one side, the curator wanted a fixed-size sample arranged randomly, ignoring geophysics results. On the other side, by agreement with the curator, we used previous information (including geophysics) to target our trial trenches. With a sample about half the size in % terms, we found more than twice as much archaeology."
there is no hope